The manufacturer is liable for deficiencies in service during the warranty period regardless of the dealer's actions, as they oversee authorized service centers.

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/O P -3, i.e. the m a n u fa ctu re r o f R enault vehicles, a g a inst the o rd e r dated 23.02.2022 and ex-parte o rd e r dated 17.02.2022 passed by the S tate C om m ission, U T C handgarh, in F irst A ppeal N o. 112 o f 2019, vide w hich S tate C om m ission passed an o rd e r a g a inst the petitioner by, as stated, com pletely m odifying the o rd e r dated 29.04.2019 passed by the D istrict F orum w herein the decision o f th e D istrict F orum in im posing the jo in t liability on the petitioner and the dealer/service centre has been m odified by holding the p e tition e r alone liable fo r deficiency in service involving a m anufacturing defect in the vehicle.

2. B rief facts o f the case are th a t com plainant/R -1 purchased R enault K w id car from the d e a le r (R -2) o f the petitioner com pany on 15.01.2016 and got the vehicle insured from R -3& 4. O n 21.08.2017 R -1/com plainant inform ed R -2 th a t her vehicle stopped w orking and brought her vehicle to R -2’s w orkshop by the R oad side assistance. A s R -1 had not allegedly disclosed the fa ct th a t the vehicle w a s parked in a w ater-logged area, her w a rra nty claim w as rejected by the d e a le r M /s P M G A uto (R -2) on the ground th a t breakdow n o f the engine had occurred due to entering of w a te r in the engine com partm ent, w hich w a s not covered under the term s and conditions o f w a rra nty agreem ent and the sam e w as not a m anufacturing defect. R -1-com plainant then approached R -3 and 4 (insurer) fo r claim ing insurance but the sam e w as rejected vide letter dated 08.11.2017 on the ground th a t there is no accident and hence the claim is not payable u n d er the policy conditions. A ggrieved by rejection o f insurance claim by R -3& 4, and also on account o f deficiency in service on th e part o f the petitioner and the service centre, R -1 filed a consum er co m p la in t before D istrict F orum on 05.12.2017. P roceedings started in the D istrict F orum w here vide order dated 29.04.2019, R -2 and the p e tition e r w ere proceeded ex-parte and a fter hearing o th e r parties and a fter perusal o f various docum ents on record, D istrict F orum passed an order holding the p e tition e r and the R -2 jo in tly liable fo r d e ficie nt service and to com pensate R -1 fo r dam ages and com pensation, etc. T he relevant portion o f the D istrict F orum ’s o rd e r dated 29.04.2019 is reproduced below :

6] After on examination careful of complete evidence on record and contentions raised by the complainant in her complaint and written statement of OPs No.1 & 2/Future Generali Insurance Company Ltd., especially Reply to legal notice (Ann.C-8) of PMG Autos Pvt. Ltd, Chandigarh/OP No.4, it is noticed that Dr. Rameshwari Sharma, complainant took her car to PMG Auto Pvt: Ltd., Plot NO.47, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh on 21.8.2017 for repair, but she was denied the service of her car by the PMG Auto Pvt. Ltd./OP No.4 allegedly on ground & observation i.e. The car came to PMG Auto Pvt. Ltd., 47 Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 21.8.2017 after being submerged in water due to heavy rainfall. Due to the entry of water in the engine, the engine got seized. RIPL Technical team after thorough investigation denied the warranty. Customer was informed and was advised to get this vehicle repaired and take the claim thru insurance.

7] The Opposite Party N0.4/PMG Autos Pvt. Ltd. refused to repair the car though within warranty period. The Renault Kwid car is having warranty of 4 years or 100000 Kms. whichever comes first on all its mechanical electrical components as promise