IMPORTANT POINT
For manufacturing defects dealer cannot be held responsible.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—These two appeals have been filed against the common order dated 25.03.2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the State Commission’) by Nissan Motor India Private Ltd and M/s. Pushpanjali Motors Ltd. respectively passed in Complaint No.C-08/188.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.1, Giraj Kishore Bansal, purchased a vehicle Nissan X Trail (SUV) car, Registration No.UP 80 AY-2122 for Rs.21,50,000/- on 16.08.2007 from the appellant in appeal no.276 of 2009, M/s. Pushpanjali Motors Ltd./OP-2, who is a dealer of OP-1/appellant in first appeal no.250 of 2009. The first service of the vehicle was performed on 24.08.2007. It has been alleged by the complainant that the vehicle broke down in the middle of Agra-Delhi Highway on 24.08.2007. The engine got over heated and emitted white smoke. Vehicle was towed to the workshop of OP-2 and was repaired. On 13.11.2007, the vehicle again broke down with engine emitting lot of smoke. OP-2 again repaired the vehicle and returned on 15.11.2007 with promise that it will not be over-heated again. On 25.11.2007, the vehicle again suffered from malfunctioning and there was again dense smoke coming out of the engine and the vehicle remained for 10 days for repairs with OP-2. The vehicle again breaks down on 27.12.2007 with same problems and the vehicle was repaired and received by the complainant on 15.01.2008 i.e after about three weeks. On 16.01.2008, OP-2 gave a letter to the complainant that the OP-1 is ready to replace the engine of the car as a gesture of goodwill.

3. The complainant then gave a legal notice and filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission alleging that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. The complaint was resisted by OP-1 & 2 on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and whatever minor problems were reported by the complainant, they were rectified under warranty clause. Though the vehicle did not suffer from any major defects, but, the OPs had already offered to change the engine of the vehicle for the satisfaction of the customer and as a gesture of goodwill. The State Commission vide its order dated 25.03.2009 allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

“21. Thus in our view the safest and feasible course is to direct the OP to refund the cost of the vehicle. But since the vehicle has already run 27,000 kms and keeping in view the vehicle taken for repairs 3-4 occasions and other financial loss and mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, in our view, by directing the OP to refund the entire cost of the vehicle which shall include compensation besides Rs.20,000/- for cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice.

22. In view of the above discussion the complaint is disposed of in the following terms:-

(i) OP shall refund Rs.21,50,000/-, the entire cost of the vehicle to the complainant and the complainant shall complete all the requisite formalities for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the OP.

(ii) OP shall pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

23. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

4. Aggrieved with the above order of the State Commission, these appeals have been filed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/OP-1 stated that heating of the engine was due to lack of coolant in the engine. The vehicle had already run 18,000 km. till January, 2008. No defect was pointed out during the first free service of the vehicle, which was performed on 24.08.2007. The affidavit filed by the complainant on 15.02.2010 reveals that the vehicle had covered 56,000 km. by then. Thus, the vehicle has been running properly and has covered the distance as normal vehicle would have covered. Moreover, State Commission has ordered replacement of vehicle or its cost to be paid without any expert r