Shivani VS Managing Director Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member and
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Shivani – Petitioner
versus
Managing Director Mahindra
& Mahindra Ltd. and Ors. – Respondent
Revision Petition No.3445 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 04/08/2017 in
Appeal No. 997/2013 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
Decided on 4.7.2023

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Pranav Diesh, Advocate for Mr. Somanddri Goudkadam, Advocate alongwith Petitioner in Person
For the Respondents:Mr. Annad Shankar Jha and Mr. Abhilekh Tiwari, Advocates

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Product - manufacturing/inherent defect – From warranty period - Liability of manufacturer and Dealer - In the present case, it is evident that the Complainant was not responsible for any accident and the car was having some serious issues right from beginning, which could be only due to a manufacturing/inherent defect. As such defects have manifested itself right from beginning during the warranty period – On facts, manufacturer (Respondent 1 & 2) and dealer (Respondent-3) are jointly and severally responsible for the deficiency in service and liable to compensate the Petitioner herein – Also, coming to the reliefs which can be granted to the petitioners, considering that the car is lying with Respondent No. 3 since 24.11.2008 i.e. more than 14 years have lapsed and manufacturing of same/similar models of cars have been stopped by the manufacture (Respondent 1 & 2) and the fact that Petitioner have actually used the car for about 15000 Kms. It will not be possible to order replacement of the car in question with a same/similar car or order total repair of the car to make it road-worthy at the cost of Respondents – On facts, Respondents herein shall pay to the Petitioner herein an amount of Rs.4,80,148/- (Rs.6,40,197/- Sale Price of car less 25% depreciation (Rs.1,60,049/-) alongwith interest @ 9% w.e.f. 18.11.2008 (date since when the car is lying with Respondent No.3) till the date of actual payment to the Petitioner – Petition disposed off.
Result: Petition disposed off.

ORDER

Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member—The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 04.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.997 of 2013 in which order dated 30.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 1143 of 2009 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Petitioner/Complainant) was Respondent, the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants in the said FA 997/2013 before the State Commission. The Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondent(s) were OPs before the District Commission in the CC no 1143 of 2009. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) herein on 24.11.2017. Notice to Respondent No. 3 was received back undelivered with postal remarks ‘Refused”. Hence, vide order dated 05.04.2018, Respondent-3 was proceeded ex-parte. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 22.01.2019 and 03.05.2023 respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:—

(i) On 07.11.2007, Petitioner booked/purchased a ‘Mahindra Renault Logan’ (hereinafter referred to as the car) from Respondent no.3, who is the authorized dealer of Respondent-1/Respondent-2 manufacturing company, availed a bank loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from Oriental Bank of Commerce, made payment to Respondent No.3, obtained an insurance policy from ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance on 29.11.2007, and Respondent no.3 issued a retail invoice for Rs. 6,40,197/- and a sale certificate on 20.12.2007, the car was registered with number MP 09 CC 0245 and a receipt of registration charges was issued by Respondent no.3 on 20.12.2007.

(ii) First free service of the car was got done on 20.12.2007 at Respondent no.3’s service centre at 1898 km in which certain complaints/observations about noise in the front door were mentioned in the job card. On 12.05.2008 second free service was got done at 7582 kms, the petitioner again stated that there was increase in noise rather than reduction, and inter alia mentioned in the job card ‘all door noise’. On 08.10.2008, the third free service of the car was got done at 13566 kms, petitioner mentioned various items to be done in the job card, which include ‘all door and dickey setting’. On 09.10.2008, Respondent no.3 issued cash memo for third free service, petitioner refused to take delivery after signing the gate pass for not rectifying defects.

(iii) The petitioner alleges that on 22.10.2008, Respondent no.3 after having continuous possession of car from 08.10.2008, opened a new job card under the category “Accident Service” and kms noted is 13566 kms, same as noted in third free service job card dated 08.10.2008. According to petitioner, Respondent no.3 instead of opening a job card for ‘Repeat Service’ opened a new card under ‘Accident Service’ category, noting there in ‘Qtr Panel Painting’. This Qtr Panel Painting of ‘front side damage’ of left door amounting to approximately Rs. 12000/- was done free of charge. The car was with Respondent No.3 from 08.10.2008 to 24.10.2008. According to Petitioner, when accidental job card was opened on 22.10.2008, the car was in the workshop in continuation of third free service from 08.10.2008, the kms reading of 13566 as mentioned in job card dated 08.10.2008 and job card dated 22.10.2008 confirms the presence of car in workshop in continuation of third free service. Even in the cash memo dated 24.10.2008, 13566 kms is mentioned. The Petitioner claims that he was assured that all the pro