Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President &
Mr. Ratan Prakash, Member
HARI SINGH—Complainant
versus
PAL-PEUGEOT LTD. & ANR.—Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 90 of 1998—Decided on 24.7.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Punit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 :Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that in cases of manufacturing defects in consumer goods, both the manufacturer and the dealer may be held liable for refunding the cost of the goods and paying compensation to the consumer.
Headnote:
Manufacturing Defect - Consumer Complaint - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 14(1)] - The court found that there was a manufacturing defect in the car, and the dealer, as an agent of the manufacturer, was also held liable for refunding the cost of the vehicle and paying compensation to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a car which had a manufacturing defect in the engine. Despite efforts by the complainant and inspections by the manufacturer's personnel, the defect could not be rectified. The complainant sought a refund of the cost of the vehicle and compensation for mental agony, physical discomfort, and financial loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a manufacturing defect in the car, and the dealer, as an agent of the manufacturer, was also held liable for refunding the cost of the vehicle and paying compensation to the complainant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the dealer could be held liable for the manufacturing defect in the car and the consequent refund and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was a manufacturing defect in the car, and the dealer, as an agent of the manufacturer, was also liable for the refund and compensation.
Final Decision: The court directed the manufacturer to refund the cost of the vehicle to the complainant and pay compensation, with the option for the complainant to realize the amounts from the dealer if the manufacturer failed to make the payments.
Mr. Ratan Prakash, Member—Shri Hari Singh, complainant has filed this complaint to seek a direction against the O.Ps. to pay to him an amount of Rs. 4,95,750/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15.1.1997; Rs. 2,000/- p.m. for the inconvenience; Rs. 2,90,000/- as compensation as disclosed in para 15 of the complaint; Rs. 5,900/- as cost of starting switch and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation for supplying him a defective Pal-Peugeot 309 AC (petrol car).
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this complaint in brief are that on 23.12.1996, he booked a Pal-Peugeot Car 309 AC (petrol) after paying an advance of Rs. 25,000/-. In consequence of it, O.P. No. 1 PAL-PEUGEOT LTD. allotted him a priority No. 0035/00053 and intimated to pay a further amount of Rs. 4,70,750/-. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,34,000/- and Rs. 1,47,750/- through Bank Drafts and thus paid a total amount of Rs. 4,95,750/- against the cost of the aforesaid vehicle to O.P. No. 1. The aforesaid car was delivered by O.P. No. 2 to the complainant on 15.1.1997 along with a Warranty Card dated 15.1.1997 (Ex. 7).
3. It is the grievance of the complainant that at the time of taking the delivery of the car, a ‘noise’ was noticed by him and he refused to take the delivery of the car. One Shri Dayanand Kasliwal, owner of O.P. No. 2; who was known; persuaded him that this ‘noise’ coming out from the car would disappear after running 2000-4000 kms. The complainant felt assured and took delivery of the car on the persuation of the owner of O.P. No. 2. The aforesaid noise in the vehicle however did not disappear and inspite of repeated reminders sent, nothing was done by the O.Ps. It is further the case of the complainant that on 26.11.1997 one Shri V.C. Gharge, Regional Service Manager of PAL-PEUGEOT Ltd., Delhi inspected the car in question and found that there is ‘noise’ in the engine and the AC is also less effective and he got the car kept under observation. Thereafter nothing was done by the O.Ps. The complainant wrote letters to O.P. No. 2 on 4.12.1997 and 8.1.1998 and informed the O.P. No. 1 through telephone also that after the inspection of the vehicle by the Service Manager, nothing has been done. By letter dated 10.2.1998 O.P. No. 1 informed the complainant that they are sending their Service Engineer for the check-up of the vehicle. In the month of May, 1998 one Shri Shashi Kant Nalavadi, Service Engineer of O.P. No. 1 from Mumbai came to check-up the vehicle. The Service Engineer found that the ‘noise’ which is coming out of the engine is not of the ‘alternator’ but may be of water body. He promised the complainant that the water body would be changed soon and the Airconditioner would also be set right. He further promised that in case the aforesaid defect is not cured, he would be supplied a new car. On 3.7.1998, the Service Engineer of O.P. No. 2 replaced the water body which was received from Mumbai still the ‘noise’ of the engine did not cease. The complainant still made repeated efforts through telephone and letters alleging that since there is manufacturing defect in the vechicle in question and the defect of ‘noise’ in the engine has not been rectified, his vehicle be replaced with a new vehicle yet the O.Ps. neither replaced the vechile nor paid the cost of the vehicle realised from the complainant.
4. The complainant, therefore, has claimed not only the cost of the vehicle paid by him to the O.Ps. but also further amounts as disclosed above for mental agony, physical discomfort, financial loss and cost of litigation, etc.
5. This complaint, has been opposed by only O.P. No. 2 since despite notice none has put in appearance on behalf of O.P. No. 1. The stand of the O.P. No. 2 (Dealer) has been that the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint are without any foundation. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle supplied to the complainant; the complainant is neither entitled for replacement of the vehicle nor to get the refund of the
