Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2309

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, Member
A-One Motors – Appellant
Versus
Anoop Kumar – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 805/2013

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chandan Malik
For the Respondents: Bhupesh Chandna, Ashok Kumar Mishra

In cases of manufacturing defects in automobiles, the manufacturer is solely liable for the resulting deficiencies, while the dealer acts only as a service intermediary and cannot be held primarily responsible for claims arising from inherent design or manufacturing failures.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency in service - Liability of manufacturer versus dealer - Vehicle purchased developed multiple mechanical defects shortly after purchase and remained parked at authorized service center for five years without resolution - Deficiency in service established due to failure to address defects during warranty period - Held, in case of manufacturing defect, manufacturer alone is liable and dealer is not liable - Impugned order modified to hold manufacturer solely liable for restitution and compensation.

Facts of the case:
A vehicle purchased in 2007 developed various mechanical issues including starting problems, rattling, and suspension defects after running only 300 kms. It was kept at an authorized service center for repair for five years, during which the warranty period lapsed. The District Commission ordered the dealer and manufacturer to pay for the vehicle and compensation. The dealer appealed, arguing that liability for manufacturing defects rests with the manufacturer.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the prolonged failure to repair the vehicle during the warranty period constituted a clear deficiency in service. Following the principle that the manufacturer is solely liable for manufacturing defects, the Commission modified the lower court order to shift the financial liability exclusively onto the manufacturer, while maintaining the compensation amount.

Issues: The primary issues concerned whether there was a deficiency in service by the service provider and, further, which entity—the dealer or the manufacturer—bore the legal liability for the defects in the vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi: Deficiency in service includes any fault or imperfection in the performance of a contract. Where a vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defects, the manufacturer is the entity responsible for the damages, as the dealer acts only as an intermediary, and holding the dealer liable for manufacturing defects is legally incorrect.

Result: Appeal disposed of with modification; manufacturer held solely liable.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to long-standing mechanical defects in a vehicle. (Para 1 , 2)
2. appellate arguments regarding the liability of dealers versus manufacturers for manufacturing defects. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. commission's observation on the definition of deficiency in service under the consumer protection act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. apportionment of liability exclusively to the manufacturer for manufacturing defects. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“We have summarily heard the complainant and the OP, in the light of replies, and other material placed on record and the submissions made in court.

The facts emerging are that complainant purchased a Tata Indigo car in 2007, from OP-1 for Rs.5,55,363/- on cash down payment. It was registered as UA-07-S-5303. It is alleged that soon after running for only 300 kms, the vehicle faced problem in starting, door adjustment, rattling in doors, power windows, high fuel consumption etc., as mentioned in the complaint. He was referred to get the vehicle checked at Shree Nath Motors, the authorised distributor. The car was attended. The complainant went to Bareilly, where he again started getting same problem. He went to M/s. Grover Motors, with problems. He was referred to other workshops, as reportedly he faced problem with car. On following dates he went to different workshop.

Date	Workshop	Issues
31.3.2007	Shree Nath Motors Ghaziabad	Starting lock, locking problems
12.5.2007	Grover Motors	Starting, Sterling, Suspension Noise Etc.,
9.6.2007	Mirkana Engineering	Starting problem, Low Fuel Average, Poor pick up, Hard steering, Gear Level Rattling, Door Noise, AC Air Flow Less, Relay Noisy, Cabin Light not working, Horn, Wiper Spray Not Proper.
22.6.2007	Mirkana Engineering	Starting problem, Low Fuel Average, Poor pick up, Hard steering & Wobbling, Hand Break, Door Noise, AC Air Flow Less, Cabin Light not working, Roof Paint Crack, Electric connections
24.7.2007	Mirkana Engineering	Starting Problem, Hard Steering & Wobbling, Door Noise, AC Air Flow Less, Cabin Light not working, Electric connections, Door Beedings Improper.
20.11.2007	Grover Motors	Starting problem, Low Fuel Average, High Engine Vibration, Hard Steering & Door Noise, AC Air Flow Les, AC Cooling insufficient, Clutch Hard & Noisy, Breaks insufficient, Door Glass Operation Hard.

It is seen that since 26.7.2007, the car is lying with Grover Motors, Bareli for removal of defects in car.

Th case was heard on 12.3.2012 when court after hearing passed the following interim order.

“The car of the complainant is lying with Grove Motors, Bareli, an Authorised Service Centre of TATA Motors. It is lying there since 2007. It was purchased in 2007. The Insurance Co. is totally unaware of this and is insensitive to this to solve this problem and is unable to sort out the problem for the last 5 years.

OP is directed to immediately get the car inspected for all defects mentioned in the complaint so far and report whether it is roadworthy after so much of time and what can be done to make it roadworthy to remove the defects for handling it over to complainant. OP will also explain why it has not been attended so far. OP (TATA Motors) will also associate its Engineer for inspection of the vehicle by replacement of car etc. to make the vehicle roadworthy, failing which it will be ordered to make the refund for the price of the car with interest.”

On 24.2.2012, TATA Motors, did not file any written reply, answering the questions raised in the above order. Its counsel merely gave a estimate of Rs.51,890/- required for cleaning and restoring the car by change of oil, filter bathing, etc., and ordinary serving of vehicle lying stations from last 6 years. There is no reply to mechanical problems for which the car is with Grover Motor, for last 5 years, when it was left

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2309

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONSangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, MemberA-One Motors – AppellantVersusAnoop Kumar – RespondentFIRST APPEAL NO. 805/2013

In cases of manufacturing defects in automobiles, the manufacturer is solely liable for the resulting deficiencies, while the dealer acts only as a service intermediary and cannot be held primarily responsible for claims arising from inherent design or manufacturing failures.

Cases Referred (2)

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, Bimla Kumari, Member
A-One Motors – Appellant
Versus
Anoop Kumar – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 805/2013