Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 632
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member, Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
BRANCH MANAGER, OSL HYUNDAI – Appellant
Versus
RUPARANJAN DAS & 3 ORS. – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 598 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajnish Sinha
For the Respondents:
Consumer entitled to repairs under warranty for manufacturing defects, irrespective of the circumstances of usage, if failure to prove misuse is evident.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d) and 10 - Complaint against vehicle manufacturer - Manufacturer required to repair vehicle under warranty - Complaint maintained for not repairing vehicle and for subsequent damages claimed. (Paras 2, 8, 9)
(B) Consumer Rights - Definition of consumer - The complainant, who purchased a vehicle, qualifies as a consumer under the Act as he sought redressal for failure to repair the vehicle as promised. (Para 8)
(C) Manufacturing Defect - Court found that if rainwater entered the vehicle's engine due to manufacturing defect, it needed repair under warranty without cost to the consumer. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged defects in a newly purchased vehicle, leading to a failure by the manufacturer to repair it satisfactorily, resulting in claims for compensation and repair cost.
Findings of Court:
Both District Forum and State Commission concurred that the manufacturer failed to prove the vehicle was misused in a flooded area, indicating a possible manufacturing defect making it a warranty issue.
Issues: The principal issues revolved around whether the vehicle was driven in a flooded area and whether the alleged defect was covered under warranty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled a vehicle under warranty required repair if defects arise from normal usage, emphasizing consumer protection under the act and limiting the interference in findings of fact of lower fora if they are supported by evidence.
Result: The revision petition has been dismissed as there was no merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the consumer complaint centers on failure of the manufacturer to repair the vehicle. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. the district forum recognized the complainant's status as a consumer and the need for repair under warranty. (Para 7) |
| 3. court ruled that manufacturing defects must be addressed under warranty obligations. (Para 8 , 9) |
1. Heard Mr. Rajnish Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, dated 18.02.2021, passed in First Appeal No. 367 of 2015 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puri, dated 30.05.2015, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 275 of 2013), by which the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed opposite parties No.1,2 & 4 to repair the vehicle as per the repair estimate dated 3.8.2013 and dated 16.11.2014 of Aditya Car Care Pvt. Ltd, opposite party No.4 free of cost and deliver the vehicle in perfect running condition within two months and pay compensatory interest @12% per annum on the cost of the vehicle of Rs.10,08,294/- from 3.8.2013 till it is repaired. If opposite parties failed to comply with the directions above within stipulated period, then the interest was enhanced @18% per annum and cost of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. The Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
3. Ruparanjan Das (Respondent No.1) filed CC No.275 of 2013 for directing opposite parties No.1 to 4 for payment of Rs.13 lakhs as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
4. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased new Verna Car bearing Engine No.D4FBCU098450 and Registration No.OR-05-AW-774 on 25.4.2012 for a sum of Rs.10,8,294/-from Hyundai Motors India Private Limited, opposite party No.1. After using few days some mechanical trouble occurred for which a complaint was made to the opposite party No.1 although the car was attended, but the defect was not removed fully. On 24.07.2013 Service Inspector of opposite party No.1 inspected the car and noticed various defects inside the engine and other parts were damaged. The complainant immediately informed about the condition of the car to the opposite parties. One Amiya Kumar Behuria, the Engineer of the opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and took the vehicle to the workshop of the opposite party. Thereafter, the complaint made inquiry several times from the opposite party and requested them to repair the car and delivered to him, but neither the car was repaired nor, it was delivered to him. On the pretext that for the problem of the car the Company is being approached and it will be done in good condition soon. The complainant many times visited the workshop of Aditya car Care Private Limited, opposite party No.4, but no useful purpose was served. Due to manufacturing defect in the car as well as the deficiency in service, complainant was suffering mental agony. On these allegations, the complaint was filed. It may be mentioned that in the complaint opposite party No.1 was Divisional Manager Hyundai Motors India Private Limited, opposite party no.2 was Branch Manager. OSL Hyundai unit and opposite party No.4 Branch Manager Aditya Hyundai, Aditya car Care Private Limited, which is authorised workshop of Hundai Motors India Limited and opposite party No.3 was TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, who was insurer of the car.
5. All the opposite parties have filed their separate written reply. Divisional Manager Hyundai Motors India Private Limited in his written reply has stated that aforementioned car was purchased by the complainant on 25.04.2012 and a car in perfect running without any technical or mechanical defect was delivered to him. The complainant used the car with his complete satisfaction upto mileage 14505 Km. within 15 months. On 24.07.2013, the car was reported to the workshop of Aditya car Care Private Limited for
