Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. Batta, Presiding Member and S.K. Naik, Member
HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ER. GOPAL K. SAHI AND ANR. - Respondents
Revision Petition Nos. 1244 and 1341 of 2008 against Order dated 7.11.2007 in Appeal No. 1300 of 2006 of the State Commission, Delhi
Decided on : 06-05-2009
Important Points
Subject
Consumer Rights - Product Liability
Act Referred
Headnote
Manufacturing Defect - Consumer Rights - [Consumer Rights] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, focusing on the definitions of consumer, manufacturer, and deficiency. The court emphasized that the manufacturer is liable for manufacturing defects and cannot escape responsibility even if the sale was made on an 'as is where is' basis. The court also highlighted the principle that the manufacturer need not replace the entire car, only the defective parts, and that the consumer can be compensated for the replacement of the defective sheet of the car.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a transit damaged car from the dealer, which was found to have a manufacturing defect causing corrosion. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, but the State Commission held the manufacturer liable and awarded compensation to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the manufacturer was liable for the manufacturing defect, and the State Commission's order of returning the car and awarding excessive compensation was unjust enrichment for the complainant. The court directed the petitioner to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the complainant.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the manufacturer for a manufacturing defect, the entitlement of the complainant to the total value of the car, and the justification of the State Commission's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the manufacturer is liable for manufacturing defects, and only the defective parts need to be replaced, not the entire car. The court also emphasized that the State Commission's order of excessive relief was unjust enrichment for the complainant.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the complainant within 45 days, failing which, the amount would carry interest at 10% p.a.
Mr. Manish Bhatnagar and Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Advocates,Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Advocate, for the Appellant; In Person., for the Respondent
ORDER
1. Both these revisions arise out of the same order passed by the State Commission. Revision Petition No. 1244/08 has been filed by M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., the manufacturer (hereinafter referred as manufacturer ) and R.P. No. 1341/08 has been filed by M/s. Deep Hyundai, dealer (hereinafter referred as dealer ). Delay of 8 days condoned.
2. The complainant's case is that he had purchased a Santro car DL 4CJ 0837 in the year 1999. The said car had met with an accident and due to high degree of corrosion resulting body weakness, the car was unable to bear the impact of accident but fortunately the complainant's life was saved in the accident. In January, 2001, the dealer agreed to sell a transit damaged repaired Santro car to the complainant on payment of Rs. 50,000 in cash on "as is where is basis". At that time, the ex-showroom price of Hyundai Santro LE-Euro car was Rs. 3,43,495 . It was agreed that the damaged car which was valued at Rs. 1.45 lakh would be kept by the dealer as also the amount of Rs. 1,05,000, which was to be received by the complainant from insurance. The number of the exchanged Santro car was DL 4C M 6282. After about 16 months of purchase of the transit damaged car, the complainant reported that it had developed corrosion on some parts of the car. The respondent inspected the car and asked the complainant to send the same for necessary repairs but complainant continued to ask the respondent to send the inspection report and the respondent repeatedly asked the complainant to send the car for removal of defects of rusting/corrosion, if any, but the complainant did not agree to send the transit damaged car for necessary repairs and approached the District Forum.
3. The dealer denied the liability on the ground that for any manufacturing defect, he was not responsible; that the complainant had never reported any problem or manufacturing defect in the previous car, which was purchased in the year 1999 till it met with an accident; that the transit damaged car was brought to the workshop for 3 services during the years 2001 and 2002 and that no complaint was made by the complainant for the said car for almost 16 months. It was only on 29.4.2002, when the car had run 13019 kms., then it was brought for repairs and the complainant reported rusting of under hood assembly, but, on inspection, no such problem was noticed. However, the dealer had asked the complainant to bring the car to the workshop repeatedly but the complainant did not agree for the same. On 18.8.2003, the car was brought for check up when it had run 19247 kms, and even at that time, the complainant did not report any corrosion or rusting of the car. According to the dealer, the rusting of the car was not on account of any manufacturing defect.
4. The manufacturer adopted the version taken by Respondent No. 1 and it was stated that the complainant had negotiated with the dealer for the purchase of transit damaged repaired car on "as is where is basis" and the said deal/transaction was only between the complainant and the dealer and the manufacturer had nothing to do with the same, nor the manufacturer had played any role in the said deal. Accordingly, the manufacturer also denied its liability.
5. The complainant approached the District and the District Forum asked Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi for inspection of the car. The inspection was carried out by Prof. R.R. Gaur, Automobile Engineer and Prof. Sunil Pandey, Material and Manufacturing working in the Mechanical Engineering Department of IIT, Delhi. In the report dated 2.12.2005, it was stated that in their considered opinion, the defect in the car referring to corrosion had become manifest because of the poor quality of the sheet surface before painting and it was clearly a manufacturing defect. Interrogatories were sent to both of them, which were replied.
6. The District Forum on the basis of material on record came to the conclusion that the purchase of the transit damaged ca
