Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member and Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member
JEEWAN MOTORS (P) LTD. - Appellant
Versus
TARIQ IRSHAD AND ANR. - Respondents
Revision Petition Nos. 51 and 93 of 2005 against Order dated 19.10.2004 in Appeal No. 1394 of 2001 of State Commission, Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : 14-07-2009
Mr. M.S. Tahilramani, Advocate,Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta and Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Ashish Bargale, Adcocate., for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of a manufacturing defect can be determined based on the discrepancy between the indicated speed in the specifications and speedometer and the actual performance of the vehicle.
Headnote:
Manufacturing Defect - Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, Section 13 - Maruti Gypsy (King ST said to be an improved model of 1300 cc) - 126 kms./hour - 100 kms./hour - 2001 (1) CT GJX 0773 NCDRC - 2009) 2 CPJ 63 (NC) - Revision Petition No. 3349 of 2006 - Revision Petition No. 2858 of 2006
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a Maruti Gypsy (King ST) and claimed that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect as it could not attain the desired speed. The dealer and manufacturer failed to remedy the issue, leading to litigation. The complainant sought replacement of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect as it could not attain the speed indicated in the specifications and speedometer. The court dismissed the Revision Petitions filed by the dealer and manufacturer, upholding the order for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase amount with interest and general damages to the complainant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Maruti Gypsy sold to the complainant could be driven beyond 100 kmph. The court also considered the responsibility of the dealer and manufacturer for manufacturing defects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and the specifications of the vehicle to determine the existence of a manufacturing defect. It emphasized that the speedometer and specifications indicated a higher speed than the vehicle could attain, supporting the complainant's claim of a defect.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Revision Petitions and upheld the order for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase amount with interest and general damages to the complainant.
Based on the provided legal document, the central legal issue concerns whether a vehicle exhibits a manufacturing defect based on its performance relative to its specifications and speedometer indications. The key points established are as follows:
-
The existence of a manufacturing defect can be determined by comparing the vehicle's actual performance, specifically its attainable speed, with the speed indicated in the vehicle's specifications and on the speedometer (!) (!) .
-
In the case discussed, the vehicle was claimed to be unable to attain the specified maximum speed (e.g., 126 km/h), despite the speedometer indicating a higher speed (e.g., 140 km/h). The inability to reach the indicated speed supports the finding of a manufacturing defect (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the discrepancy between the vehicle's actual performance and the specifications or speedometer readings is indicative of a defect, especially when the vehicle cannot perform as promised or expected based on its specifications (!) (!) .
-
The responsibility for such defects can extend jointly to both the manufacturer and the dealer, particularly when the defect is established through performance testing and the manufacturer’s specifications, and when the dealer has been involved in the sale and subsequent testing or inspection processes (!) (!) .
-
The assessment of manufacturing defects also considers whether the vehicle's performance aligns with the representations made in marketing or specifications, and whether the vehicle's inability to perform as indicated constitutes a deficiency warranting remedy, such as replacement or refund (!) (!) .
-
In cases where the vehicle's actual speed falls short of the indicated maximum speed despite the speedometer readings, and this discrepancy is supported by evidence and testing, the court is inclined to uphold claims of manufacturing defect and order appropriate remedies (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal principle established is that a vehicle's manufacturing defect can be ascertained by demonstrating that it cannot attain the speed indicated in its specifications and speedometer, and such a discrepancy justifies consumer remedies including replacement or refund.
ORDER
Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member - Mr. Tariq Irshad was the complainant before the District Forum. He had purchased a Maruti Gypsy (King ST said to be an improved model of 1300 cc) from the Revision Petitioners on 2.7.1998. The main grievance of the complainant was that the vehicle was not picking up the desired speed and could not be driven beyond 90-95 kms. per hour (for short kmph ). The vehicle was checked by the dealer, M/s. Jeevan Motors (P) Ltd. and some work was done on 18th August, 1998 as well as on 20th August, 1998 but there was no improvement. Subsequently, the dealer informed vide their letter dated 3rd December, 1998 that they are taking up the matter with the Maruti Udyog Ltd. (manufacturer) and requesting their service representative to visit and check the vehicle. Finally, on 8.2.1999 the complainant was informed that they had already carried out a road drive test of the vehicle on 8th December, 1998 and it was found that the vehicle could be driven upto the speed of 100 kmph. It was further explained that because of road condition and safety factor, no effort was made to drive the vehicle beyond 100 kmph.
2. Dissatisfied with the lack of remedial measures taken by the dealer and the manufacturer, the complainant approached the District Forum stating that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and prayed for replacement of the same. The dealer disowned its responsibility stating that the responsibility regarding manufacturing defect lay only with the manufacturer. The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant approached the State Commission in appeal.
3. The State Commission observed that the very fact that dealer had informed the complainant through its letter dated 3rd December, 1998 that the matter is being taken up with the manufacturer, clearly shows that the dealer was satisfied with the genuineness of the complaint of the complainant and since the defect could not be remedied at their level, the matter was taken up with the manufacturer. This is supported by the letter dated 20th December, 1998, written by the manufacturer to the complainant assuring him that the action is being taken in the matter. To the assertion of the manufacturer that their engineer along with some officer of the dealer had carried out test drive of the vehicle and it was found that the vehicle could be driven at a speed of 100 kmph the complainant has denied that any such test drive was carried out at Bhopal or that the vehicle could be driven at a speed of 100 kmph.
4. The State Commission further observed that the letter dated 8.2.1999 relating to the test drive is not free from suspicion and what is stated in the letter has not been substantiated in evidence by filing a particular affidavit of a person who had performed the test drive. Even Mr. Bargale, engineer of the dealer who was supposed to be present at the time of test drive has not filed any affidavit. Further normally such test drive should have been conducted in the presence of the complainant, which has not been done. The State Commission held that this was a case of res ipsa loquitur as the facts spoke for themselves. Regarding the contention of the learned Counsel for the dealer that for manufacturing defect only the manufacturer held responsible has been clarified by the State Commission relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that both the manufacturer as well as the dealer are jointly and severally responsible. Accordingly, the State Commission directed that the complainant shall deliver the car at the workshop of the dealer within 30 days of the passing of the order and necessary remedial measures shall be taken by both the dealer and the manufacturer and the car showing the desired performance in the pick up and the speed shall be delivered back to the complainant within next 30 days. In case the defect is not removed, the respondents shall either provide the complainant a new car or repay the entire price amount of Rs. 3
