2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3204
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Kumkum Rani, President, B.S. Manral, Member
Eapro Global Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shiva Motocorp – Jaguar Land Rover – Respondent
SC/5/CC/2/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vaibhav Jain, Shonak Sharma
For the Respondents: Deepak Ahluwalia, Utkarsh Srivastava
A vehicle's failure to meet advertised performance specifications and absence of a standard specification feature constitute manufacturing defects, rendering the manufacturer liable for refund, irrespective of a principal-to-principal relationship with the dealer.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 2(7)(ii), 2(47), 47(1)(a)(i), 47(4)(d) - Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Implied warranty of merchantability - Manufacturing defect - Vehicle failing to meet advertised acceleration specifications - Absence of promised feature (Fuel Filler Flap - Central Locking) - Unfair trade practice - Deficiency in service - Territorial jurisdiction - Definition of 'consumer' - Commercial purpose - Principal-to-principal relationship between manufacturer and dealer does not absolve manufacturer of liability for manufacturing defects - Chassis cutting and welding without consent constitutes alteration of vehicle's foundation - Interest @7% p.a. from date of admission of complaint - Litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/-. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(7)(ii) - 'Consumer' - Person who hires or avails of any service for consideration - Complaint alleging manufacturing defect - Such complaint does not constitute availing of service for commercial purpose - Complainant falls within the definition of 'consumer'. (Para 24)
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 47(4)(d) - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint can be instituted in State Commission within whose limits complainant resides or personally works for gain - Condition in documents of opposite parties cannot oust jurisdiction of Commission. (Para 25)
(D) Unfair Trade Practice - Definition under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Advertisement of specific performance (acceleration 0-100 km/h in 6.1 seconds) - Failure to achieve advertised performance - No disclaimer at time of purchase - Constitutes deception and inaccurate statement - Amounts to unfair trade practice. (Paras 28, 29, 30) (E) Manufacturing Defect - Vehicle not equipped with standard specification feature (Fuel Filler Flap - Central Locking) as per order details - Absence of such feature affects security and utility - Constitutes manufacturing defect. (Paras 29, 30) (F) Manufacturing Defect - Chassis cutting, welding, riveting, and glue fixing in a new vehicle to repair a defect - Such alteration of the vehicle's foundational, load-bearing skeleton constitutes a serious defect and alteration of the vehicle's very foundation. (Para 34) (G) Evidence - Expert evidence - Documentary evidence on record, including order details and admission by opposite parties, can itself prove manufacturing defect without need for expert evidence. (Para 38) (H) Principal-to-Principle Relationship - Manufacturer and dealer - Clause in agreement between them that neither is responsible for acts of the other - Complainant not a party to such agreement - Cannot be used to deny legitimate claim of complainant - Manufacturer cannot escape liability for manufacturing defects. (Paras 35, 36) (I) Privity of Contract - Exists between manufacturer and consumer when manufacturer provides warranty and carries out repairs under warranty - Manufacturer is a 'service provider'. (Para 36)
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a vehicle from the dealer (opposite party No. 1), an authorized retailer of the manufacturer (opposite party No. 2), for Rs. 1,65,61,234/-. The complainant alleged that the vehicle failed to achieve the advertised acceleration of 0-100 km/h in 6.1 seconds, instead taking over 7.1 seconds, and was not equipped with the standard 'Fuel Filler Flap - Central Locking' feature. The complainant also alleged other defects, including a screeching sound from the cabin (repaired by chassis cutting, welding, etc. without consent), delayed delivery of the second smart key, defective tail lamp, loose air intake, and missing bolt. The opposite parties denied manufacturing defects, stating that the advertised speed was achieved under controlled test conditions and that the fuel filler flap lock was unavailable due to chip shortages. The parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the complaint is maintainable, the complainant is a 'consumer', and the Commission has territorial jurisdiction. The court found that the failure to achieve advertised acceleration and the absence of 'Fuel Filler Flap - Central Locking' constitute manufacturing defects. The court also noted that the chassis cutting was an admission of a defect. The court held that the manufacturer (opposite party No. 2) is liable for refund of the vehicle price with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of admission of the complaint (27.03.2024) and litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/-, while the dealer (opposite party No. 1) was exonerated.
Issues: The main issues were whether the complainant is a 'consumer', whether the Commission has territorial jurisdiction, whether the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defects, and whether the manufacturer is liable for refund.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a vehicle failing to meet advertised performance specifications and lacking a standard specification feature constitutes a manufacturing defect. The manufacturer is liable for such defects despite any principal-to-principal relationship with the dealer, as the complainant is not a party to that agreement. Chassis cutting to repair a defect in a new vehicle is a serious alteration of the vehicle's foundation. Interest on refund is awarded from the date of admission of the complaint, not from the date of purchase, considering the complainant's use of the vehicle.
Result: Consumer complaint allowed against opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 directed to refund the price of the subject vehicle (Rs. 1,65,61,234/-) with interest @7% p.a. from 27.03.2024 till payment, plus litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/-. Complainant directed to handover the vehicle to opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 1 exonerated from liability.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consumer complaint alleging vehicle manufacturing defects (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. dealer's defense: no defect, warranty compliance (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. manufacturer's defense: no privity, no defect (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. complainant's replication on manufacturing defects (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. procedural history and evidence submissions (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. consumer status and territorial jurisdiction upheld (Para 24 , 26) |
| 7. manufacturing defect: acceleration and fuel flap issues (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. delivery acknowledgment and notice of defect (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. chassis cutting admitted; defect established (Para 34) |
| 10. manufacturer liable for inherent defect; dealer exonerated (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 11. refund order with interest and costs (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This consumer complaint under Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant – M/s Eapro Global Limited against the opposite parties, namely, Shiva Motocorp – Jaguar Land Rover and Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd. respectively, seeking following reliefs:
(a)The opposite parties may kindly be ordered to replace the said vehicle with a new vehicle which will perform the intended function as specified and compensate the complainant with an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- for all the direct financial loss and mental harassment along with litigation expenses or refund the amount of Rs. 1,76,11,234/- inclusive of the original purchase amount and damages.
(b)Any other relief(s) which Hon’ble Commission deems appropriate and fit.
2. The factual matrix of the case, as set forth in the consumer complaint, is that on 21.10.2022, the complainant purchased a vehicle under the name & style of “DEFENDER 110 X P400” bearing chassis No. SALEA7AU3P2135798, engine No. 220520Z0140PT306 and registration No. UK-08BB-0099, for sum of Rs. 1,65,61,234/- including registration charges; insurance; all other taxes and accessories, from the opposite party No. 1, the authorised dealer of opposite party No. 2. The complainant was highly satisfied with the quality; performance and service of the subject vehicle. The complainant faced numerous issues in the subject vehicle regarding its quality and performance, which were not apparent at the time of purchase of the subject vehicle. After receiving the delivery of the subject vehicle, it was observed that the subject vehicle did not perform as per the specifications advertised by the opposite parties on the website www.landrover.in. Much to the complainant’s dismay and shock, the subject vehicle failed to achieve the advertised acceleration speed of 0-100 km/h within 6.1 seconds, rather the subject vehicle was taking over 7.1 seconds to achieve the said acceleration speed. The complainant opposed to the same. This apart, as assured to the complainant, the subject vehicle was not equipped with “Fuel Filler Flap – Central Locking”.
3. It was also stated that the subject vehicle is suffering from following issues, which the opposite party No. 1 has failed to redress inspite of raising the grievance by the complainant on different occasions:
(i) As to what was assured and promised, the subject vehicle is not equipped with Fuel Filler Flap – Central Locking system.
(ii) The subject vehicle is delivering 16% less power than what was claimed on opposite party No. 2’s website, taking more than 7.1 seconds to achieve 0-100 km/h speed, as against the advertised timing of 6.1 seconds.
(iii) There was a persistent, irritating screeching sound emanating from the rear left side of the cabin. For the repair of this defect, the opposite party No. 1 took a period of 7 months’ and kept the subject vehicle with it for more than 40 days’ in a total of 3 visits from the complainant’s place to the service centre, which is 150 kms. away. Without the written or oral consent of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 made major chassis cut, welding, riveting and g
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
