The liability of the manufacturer for selling defective goods and the entitlement of the consumer to replacement of goods with new goods free from any defect under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member - This revision petition challenges the order dated 2.3.2007 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission ) in First Appeal No. 366 of 2002. By this order, the State Commission modified the order dated 7.2.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Janak Puri, New Delhi (in short, the District Forum ) in complaint case No. 260 of 2001 and directed the petitioner (appellant before the State Commission) to refund the cost of the vehicle with depreciation of 10% to respondent 1 on return of the vehicle and pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and injury suffered by respondent 1/complainant and cost of litigation.

2. Respondent 1 was the complainant before the District Forum. He purchased a TATA Indica DLX car from respondent/opposite party 2 (OP 2), the authorised dealer of the car manufacturer (OP 1 before the District Forum), i.e., the petitioner herein. The complainant alleged that even at the time of delivery, the car did not have the audio warning signal and reversing beeper though these facilities were mentioned in the booking brochure but for which extra money was charged. Sides of the car had black linings, which were not rectified despite assurance to do so at the time of the first free service. Just after driving 350 km, the oil of the power steering leaked out and the power windows stopped working. The car had to be towed to the workshop, where it remained for two days. Non-functioning of the power windows happened several times thereafter. At the time of the first free service, the complainant was assured that all the defects in the car, viz., coolant leakage, wheel alignment, problem with the power windows, defective central lock, improper rear view mirror, starting trouble, defective gear box, low mileage, excessive heating of the car and noisy fan belt would be rectified but nothing was done. As a result of these defects, the car had to be taken to the workshop a number of times within the period of 18 months (warranty period). The complainant wrote to the General Manager of OP 1 about these defects, which continued to recur showing that these were serious manufacturing defects and hence beyond repairs. In view of these reasons, the complainant sought directions of the District Forum to the OPs to replace his car with a new one or refund the cost of the car and to also pay him compensation for harassment and inconvenience.

3. The complaint was contested by both the OPs. It mainly claimed that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and OP 2 promptly attended to some routine problems, which were noticed from time-to-time in the course of regular use of the car.

4. After considering the pleadings, evidence and hearing the parties, the District Forum observed as under:

"OP 2 has strongly argued that as and when complainant approached for rectifying the defects he was prompt in providing service and the defects were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant and in support of it he has relied on the remarks of the complainant given on the gate pass issued by OP 2. We have observed that the production of several gate pass by OP 2 by which OP 2 has tried to establish that he has provided prompt service for removing the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, normally when defects are removed, a person signs the gate pass and can ascertain the removal of defect only after using the vehicle for some more time. Immediately nobody can ascertain about the removal of defects which need certain time after driving the vehicle. Hence, we are not inclined to agree with the plea of OP 2 that merely signing the gate pass and acknowledging the vehicle received in perfect condition will amount to removal of the defects. On the contrary approaching of the complainant time and again to OP 2 with the same and similar defects establishes the fact that the vehicle in question suffers from certain inhe