Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K. Ramanna, President, A.M. Bennur and Rama Ananth, Members
SHRUTI MOTORS - Appellant
Versus
SHIVASHANKARAPPA AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 747 of 2011
Decided on : 10-03-2011
Mr. T. Seshagiri Rao and Mr. Sunil S. Rao, Advocates, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint and several liability of the dealer and manufacturer for manufacturing defects in the vehicle, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g), 14(l)(d) and previous decisions.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection - Automobile Defects - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g), 14(l)(d) - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g), 14(l)(d)] - The court referenced and discussed the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g), 14(l)(d) in relation to automobile defects and the liability of the dealer and manufacturer. The court relied on previous decisions to establish the joint and several liability of the dealer and manufacturer for manufacturing defects in the vehicle, emphasizing that the dealer cannot escape liability and must either replace the vehicle or pay its price with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a car from the dealer, which subsequently experienced multiple defects. The dealer and manufacturer were held jointly liable for the defects. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum (DF) seeking redress.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dealer and manufacturer were jointly liable for the defects in the vehicle, as established by previous decisions. The court upheld the order of the DF, dismissing the appeal and affirming the joint liability of the dealer and manufacturer.
Issues: The main issue was the liability of the dealer and manufacturer for the defects in the vehicle, as well as the complainant's entitlement to redress for the defective car.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g), 14(l)(d) and previous decisions to establish the joint and several liability of the dealer and manufacturer for manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The court emphasized that the dealer cannot escape liability and must either replace the vehicle or pay its price with interest.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission, and the amount deposited by the appellant/OP was ordered to be transferred to the DF for payment to the complainant.
ORDER
K. Ramanna, President - This is an appeal filed by the OP No. l /Authorized Maruthi Suzuki dealer challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 24.1.2011 passed by the DF, Chitradurga in Complaint No. 98/2010 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part directing OPs 1 and 3 to deliver a new Maruthi Suzuki DZIRE VDI Car of the same model and to pay life tax insurance and registration charges to the complainant by retaining the complainant's car bearing KA-16 M -4569 which is with OP No. l or OPs 1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the sale price of the car Rs. 5,81,088 with 10% interest from 3.8.2009 till realization by deducting Rs. 40,000 paid by OP No. l through DD dated 13.12.2009 and Rs. 75,000 towards compensation for mental agony, travelling expenses and Rs. 4,000 towards litigation expenses to the complainant. Therefore, OP No. l has come up with this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Complainant had purchased Maruthi Suzuki Swift Dzire VDI Car from OP No. l for a sum of Rs. 5,81,088 by obtaining financial assistance from the Bank, Chitradurga. On 15.8.2009 the said car broke down and stopped and the same was intimated to OP No. l through telephone and in turn OP No. l informed that he will send a mechanic on 17.8.2009 because of holidays. But in vain. On 18.8.2009 one Nagaraj and another person of OP No. l came to complainant's house and checked the car and tried to start by putting lot of efforts, but it was not started. Again on, 19.8.2009 one Mr. Basavaraj came and checked the car but unable to find out the problem. Again on 20.8.2009 one Mr. Bakhash along with Basavaraj checked the vehicle and confirmed that coolant mixing with engine oil and head gasket was blown off and further stated that the car is having major problem which can be set right at Shimoga Service Center and thereby took the vehicle to Shimoga. But on 1.9.2009 OP No. l sent a letter to the complainant stating that the vehicle was not starting and they decided to replace the cylinder head assembly and water pump assembly as per the guidance of Service Center. But the complainant denied to receive the repaired car because of the delay in service. Therefore, OP No. l insisted the complainant to take Rs. 40,000 towards compensation for the delay in repair.
3. The further contention of the complainant that on 26.10.2009 when the complainant was going towards Tumkur the vehicle suddenly broke down and the same was intimated to OP No. 1. OP No. l advised him to take the vehicle to OP No. 2 at Tumkur service centre. As per the advice he took the vehicle to the said service centre and found that that the earlier defect was not rectified properly and the engine was over heating. Thereafter on one or the other pretext the said vehicle was giving defects and subsequently complainant was approaching OPs. Therefore, filed a complaint before the DF.
4. After service of notice, OPs appeared through its Counsel filed its version admitting about the purchase of the car by the complainant contending that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual and service booklet when the problems in the vehicle will be rectified and parts will be replaced free of cost and the said defect of over heating of head gasket. But the complainant has not given permission for repair of the vehicle and on 22.8.2009 complainant intimated OP No. l through phone permitting to remove the engine for inspection and found that leakage of coolant and water pump failure and also found that there is no coolant in the radiator which mean complainant have driven vehicle without proper keeping of coolant. Complainant has driven the vehicle in a negligent manner by violating the terms and conditions of the warranty resulting in damage of head gasket, damage of cylinder head assembly, value adjuster and oil seal. Therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to substantiate the complainant averme
