IMPORTANT POINT
Onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect was on the complainant.

Ashok Bhan, President—Classic Automobiles-petitioner herein was the Opposite Party No.4 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) Petitioner was the authorized dealer of M/s. Daewoo Motors India Ltd.-respondent no.2 herein, a Company which is in liquidation. Complainant is respondent no.1 herein.

2.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:-

Case of the complainant/respondent No.1 in nutshell is that he had purchased one Matiz car bearing registration no. BR-17E-0774 priced at Rs.2,67,138/- on 11.12.1999 from the petitioner who is the authorized dealer of Daewoo Motors India Limited-respondent no.2. The car was under warranty for a period of 2 years from the date of purchase of the car .On the very next date of purchase, i.e., 12.12. 1999, the “check light” started glowing on the indicator panel even during the normal running of the car. As per service book, the “check light” is engine control indicator signalling for “Service Engine Soon”. Respondent No. 1 reported the matter to the petitioner. The car was checked at the service station of the petitioner and delivered back to respondent no.1 but the problem persisted. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner had admitted that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of the petitioner for S.E.S. (Service Engine Soon) check-up four times and was returned with observation that fault of glowing ‘check light” is not a manufacturing defect. Complainant/respondent was told that the fault would continue to display, as the vehicle in question was not an air-conditioned car. The same would be rectified in due course after continuous running of the car. It was also averred in the complaint that the petitioner resorted to unfair trade practice by charging price of Catalytic Converter which was not fitted in the car. That a Euro II car without Catalytic Converter cannot meet the emission norms.

3. Petitioner as well as other opposite parties filed their Written Statements. It was asserted that the complainant was aware of the fact that the car sold to him was without Catalytic Converter. He took the delivery of the car after thorough inspection and on being fully satisfied. It was asserted by the petitioner that it always attended to the car within the warranty period whenever the same was brought to the service station by the complainant. That there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. It was asserted that continuous appearance of “check light” has nothing to do with any defect in engine of the car sold. That car with the Catalytic Converter could run only with unleaded petrol and supply of unleaded petrol was not available in Dhanbad in November-December, 1999 when the complainant purchased the car in question. In reply to unfair trade practices, it was stated that there was no difference in the prices of the car whether fitted with Catalytic Converter or not. No excess price was charged.

4. The District Forum, after noticing the pleadings of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner as well as respondent no.2, jointly and severally to refund the price of the car, i.e., Rs.2,57,138 with interest @ 12% cumulative from the date of delivery of the vehicle, i.e., 11.12.1999 till the date of realisation. Petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation, cost of litigation and mental plus physical harassment of the complainant.

5. District Forum, under caption “FINDINGS” held as under: -

“In view of the sale certificate Annex-1 and certificate of conformity to Emission norms dated 1.4.2000 Annex-6 issued by the O.Ps. are admissions made by O.Ps. that the car in question was sold to the complainant. The repair receipts dated 5.6.2000, 9.7.2000, 12.3.01, 26.4.01 and 17.01.01- Annex. 8 to 12 are almost an admitted fact that the complainant’s vehicle infact suffered from inherent manufacturing defects