IMPORTANT POINT
Dealer cannot be held liable for manufacturing defects in car.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—This common order will decide two cross revision petitions, detailed above, which arise from the orders passed by the State Commission dated 19.03.2009. Sh. S. P. N. Singh, the complainant, placed an order for purchase of a motor car, using it for personal capacity, on 17.09.1996, for with Hindustan Motors Limited, OP1 through its Dealer, Ess Pee Automotives Ltd., OP2. He paid a sum of Rs.3,13,599/- towards the price of the car. He took delivery of the car on 08.08.1996.

2. Immediately, certain defects cropped up in the car. Its body and speedometer were found defective during the first service. The defect in the speedometer was rectified. After sometime, more defects were detected in the car, viz., the colour of the body faded and there was very high consumption of mobile oil. The complainant lodged a complaint with the appellants vide letter dated 19.10.1996. Again the complaint was lodged on 10.05.1997. The first service was done at 6000 kms and it transpired that the engine had consumed one litre of oil only on a run of 2000 kms. On 10.05.1997, the same manufacturing defect was detected. The car was examined by a Mechanic on 10.05.1997, but it did not ring the bell. On 03.06.1997, the authorized agent of OP1-Hindustan Motors Ltd., checked the vehicle but the vehicle consumed one litre of mobile oil on a running of 400 kms only.

3. The OPs requested the complainant to change the mobile and to observe consumption thereof on a run of 500 kms. The OPs suggested change of rings which was eloquent of inherent manufacturing defects in the engine of the car. On 16.06.1997, the complainant made a request to the OPs for replacement of the defective engine with a new and defect free engine for on run of 6000 kms only. All the four rings of the car were changed and, therefore, the resale value of the car was considerably lowered down. Such change of rings generally expected after over two years. Despite the said change, the car did not give good service. Ultimately a complaint was filed with the District Forum, on 01.07.1997. The complainant had to spend Rs.400/- per day for hiring a taxi. There was correspondence between the parties but it did not produce the desired result.

4. The OPs resisted the complaint before the District Forum. They contended that the complainant is not a consumer, because the car was purchased by Ashok Chitra Pvt. Ltd., Patna and not by the complainant. Again, the defects in the car were removed. The car was used for commercial purposes. OP2-Ess Pee Automotives Ltd., averred that Hindustan Motors Ltd., was the manufacturer which provides warranty of the vehicle and the defects quoted by the complainant were directly remitted to the warranty policy given by the manufacturer. It contended that as its workshop was inundated with rain water, there was delay in repairing of the vehicle. However, the District Forum found the OPs to be negligent in providing service to the complainant and it directed them to take/receive all the parts of the engine of the car lying in the premises of the complainant and to replace the said engine with new one or with the one which was identical to the engine which was fitted in the car at the time of purchase thereof, within two months of receipt of the order, failing which, the OPs must pay to the complainant the amount of money which was the price of the value of the engine at the time of purchase thereof, with interest @ 9% p. a.

5. The State Commission passed the following order :-

“Admittedly, no such car is nowadays, being manufactured. The District Forum directed the appellants to replace the defective old engine with a similar new engine. The complainant had sought for replacement of the said car with a new one or for payment of present market sale value of the car with interest thereon @ 18%. Considering the entire facts and circumstances attending to the case, we are of the opinion that the appellants should be directed to deliver the new ca