Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President, Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member
Love Kumar Sharma —Petitioner
versus
Cargo Motors (P) Ltd. & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1843 of 2011
(Against the Order dated 17/02/2011 in Appeal No. 785/2009 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 2.7.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vishesh Issar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Nemo
For the Respondents No.2:Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Necessity to change two vital parts of vehicle is manifestation of charge of Petitioner that brand new vehicle did suffer from manufacturing defects.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Automobile—Manufacturing defect—Not only fuel pump developed problem within less than four months of purchase of vehicle, leaving Petitioner stranded on road while driving from one city to another, even Engine had to be replaced within same period of four months—Plea that engine of vehicle was changed just to maintain good relations is without any substance—Necessity to change two vital parts of vehicle is manifestation of charge of Petitioner that brand new vehicle did suffer from manufacturing defects and no further expert evidence was required to be adduced to prove the fact—Attending to defects in car and even carrying out repairs free of cost, is of no solace to an owner of vehicle and does not absolve a dealer or a manufacturer from its liability to adequately compensate purchaser for inconvenience, harassment and mental and physical agony suffered by him on account of defects in car—Compensation of Rs.1,58,000/- awarded by District Forum was adequate and did not warrant interference by State Commission. (Paras 10 to 15)
Result : Revision Petition allowed.
D.K. Jain, President—On 24.03.2008, the Petitioner purchased a new ‘Palio Stile’ passenger car from Respondent No.1, an authorized dealer of Fiat India Automobiles Ltd., the manufacturer of the vehicle. He paid a sum of Rs.3,40,364/- towards the price of the car and an additional sum of Rs.4,200/- for the extended warranty by 18 months.
2. According to the Petitioner, within five days of the purchase, the coolant in the car started leaking. On 03.07.2008, when he was driving the vehicle from Chandigarh to Jallandhar, it started ‘mis-firing’ and then suddenly stopped. The vehicle was towed to a nearby Service Station but the defect could not be rectified. On 05.07.2008, the vehicle had to be towed to the workshop of Respondent No.1 at Jallandhar, when he was informed that there was defect in the fuel pump, which had to be replaced. The vehicle was left there and a job card was prepared on 08.07.2008. Since the Petitioner did not hear from the said Respondent about the status of the car, on 19.07.2008, he addressed a letter to Respondent No.1, inter-alia stating that :-
“ On 05.07.2008, the car was parked in your workshop for finding the fault. I was told that the water had (sic) entered in the petrol fuel tank. Even after cleaning the fuel tank, the fault could not be rectified. Then during my meeting with G.M. on 11.07.2008, I was told that fault is due to fuel pump. I have been (sic) given to understand that the same has been replaced.
Now the car is still under experiments of your work shop. I have to face great hardships in performing my duties. Now I fear that the engine of the car is being opened. Please also deliver me the copy of job card to get the status of the car. To stop further harassment to me it would be better to replace the faulty car otherwise I will be compelled to initiate the legal proceedings against the company.”
3. Ultimately, after re-inspection of the vehicle, its Engine was replaced. Later on, the wiring in the car was also changed. Still dis-satisfied with the performance of the vehicle and feeling that the vehicle had some inherent defects and its market value had diminished because of replacement of Engine, the Petitioner requested Respondent No.1 to either replace the car or refund its full price i.e. Rs.3,40,364/-.
4. Having failed to elicit any positive response from the said Respondent, the Petitioner filed Complaint in the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short, “the District Forum”) seeking a direction to the Respondents, viz. the dealer and the manufacturer, to replace the car with a new one or in the alternative refund the full price of the car; reimburse the expenses incurred by him on accessories; insurance charges and amount charged for extended warranty, along with costs of litigation.
5. The Complaint was resisted by both the Respondents on diverse pleas. However, upon consideration of the documents on record, including the affidavit of the Engineer of Respondent No.1, asserting that the replacement of engine under warranty did not impair the utility and value of the vehicle as also Surveyor’s report filed by the Petitioner, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the new vehicle, purchased by the Petitioner, had manufacturing defects, which surfaced within a few months of its purchase and the same could not be rectified despite extensive repairs, including replacement of Engine of new vehicle. Accordingly, vide order, dated 09.04.2009, the District Forum allowed the Complaint with a direction to the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner, jointly and severally, a compensation of Rs.1,58,000/- for the inconvenience and harassment caused to him on account of manifest manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Additionally, Respondents were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-, being two third of the insurance premium and registration charges.
6. Being aggrieved, both the Respondents took the matter in separate Appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
