Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Honble Mr. Justice R.K. Varma, President &
Mr. N.K. Vaidya, Member
DR. B.M. GAUR—Appellant
versus
PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal Nos. 814, 804, 829 of 1995—Decided on 24.7.1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. B.V. Bhargava, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. K.B. Swamy, Advocate.
The manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally liable for the defective car and the complainant is entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of purchase to the date of refund.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - JURISDICTION - SECTION 14(1)(I) - MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY - SECTION 14(1)(I) - DEFECTIVE CAR - SECTION 14(1)(I) - REFUND OF PRICE - SECTION 14(1)(I) - INTEREST ON REFUNDED AMOUNT - SECTION 14(1)(I) - SUMMARY: The court held that the manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally liable for the defective car and ordered the dealer to refund the price of the car to the complainant with interest. The court also held that the complainant was entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of purchase to the date of refund.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a Premier 118 NE car from the dealer. The car was delivered to the complainant on 16.11.1992. The complainant alleged that the car had several manufacturing defects. He filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior. The Forum allowed the complaint and directed the dealer to refund the price of the car to the complainant with interest. The dealer, manufacturer, and complainant filed appeals against the order of the Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally liable for the defective car. The court also held that the complainant was entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of purchase to the date of refund.
Issues: 1. Whether the manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally liable for the defective car? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of purchase to the date of refund?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally liable for the defective car because the manufacturer had failed to furnish any evidence worth the name in this connection. They rather threw all the responsibility on the dealer (non-applicant No. 3) and were almost silent spectators in the entire proceedings before the District Forum. 2. The court held that the complainant was entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of purchase to the date of refund because the Act authorises the Forum to order the opposite party to do one or more of the things named in sub-paras of para 14(i) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the dealer and manufacturer. The court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and directed the dealer to pay interest on the refunded amount from the date of purchase to the date of refund.
Mr. N.K. Vaidya, Member — These three appeals are being decided in one order, as the order appealed against by all the three, is one and the same, being the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior passed on 17.10.1995 in their Case No. l459 of 1993 declaring Premier 118 NE Car Chasis No. 40098 Engine No. 4027 as defective and granting relief to the complainant as detailed in the said order.
2. In Appeal No. 814/95, the appellant/ complainant before the Forum has requested as under:
(i) The order granting relief has been passed by the Forum against respondent No. 3 only, whereas it should have been passed against all the three.
(ii) That he should be granted 12% interest on Rs. 2,58,970/- from 1.9.1992 to 16.11.1992, which the Forum has omitted to order.
(iii) That the proceeding expenses awarded by the Forum should be enhanced.
3. In Appeal No. 804/95, the appellant (Dealer M/s. Motors & Tractors) has requested as under:
(i) That the Forum has erred on holding the entire responsibility, only on the appellant (dealer of car) excluding the manufacturer and his service manager.
(ii) That the enhanced price of the car Rs. 3,003/- was charged by the appellant on behalf of the manufacturer, who has not disputed the enhancement.
(iii) That it is the manufacturer, who is responsible for delay from 10.8.1992 to 16.11.1992 in delivering the car and not the appellant.
(iv) That it is the manufacturer, who should have been held responsible for manufacturing defects and not the appellant.
(v) That in duration of eight months, car was brought to his workshop on nine occasions and every time except on the last occasion, the complainant had taken back the car with satisfactory note and yet the Forum wrongly held that the car had manufacturing defects.
(vi) That the complainant had not prayed for refund of price, but the Forum wrongly ordered refund of the price.
4. In Appeal No. 829/95, the appellant (manufacturer) has requested as under :
(i) That the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, adjudication whereof was to be based on technical considerations.
(ii) That the delay of three months and three days in delivery of the car could not be said to be unreasonable.
(iii) That merely existence of defects, when the car was brought for repairs, does not imply that these were manufacturing defects because manufacturing defects can be ascertained only by an expert independent agency.
(iv) That the Hon'ble Forum could grant only reliefs prayed for and not beyond such prayer and therefore the Forum wrongly ordered refund of the car.
5. Heard the arguments of the appellants and respondents and perused the records of the case.
6. The Forum has granted reliefs as under to the complainant:
(i) The respondent No. 3 i.e. the dealer shall refund Rs. 2,62,970/- to the complainant, being the price paid by the complainant and on refund, the complainant shall return the defective car to the dealer.
(ii) The dealer shall pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 12% p.a. w.e.f. 16.11.1992 till the date of payment.
(iii) The dealer shall refund Rs. 3,003/- charged in excess alongwith 12% interest w.e.f. 16.11.1992 till its payment.
(iv) The dealer shall pay Rs. 1,000/- as proceeding expenses and Rs. 3,000/- as Advocate's fee to the complainant.
7. The undisputed facts in this case are as under:
(i) That in the quotation dated 5.8.1992, issued by dealer. Motors & Tractors, Gwalior to the complainant (Ex. P-5) the price of the car Premier 118 NE (A/C) was quoted as Rs. 2,62,967/- inclusive of transportation, temporary registration and transit insurance charges etc.
(ii) That the complainant deposited a draft for Rs. 2,58,970 with M/s. Motors & Tractors, Gwalior on 10.8.1992 and the said dealer issued Receipt No. 363 dated 10.8.1992 (Ex. P-l). The DD was payable at SBI Branch, Daman.
(iii) That the dealer M/s. Motors & Tractors received in cash at Gwalior Rs. 4,000/- on account of transport
