Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- ["NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS HARSOLIA MOTORS - Supreme Court"]- ["Richa & Co. A Partnership Firm Through its Partner Shri Virender Uppal VS DLF Universal Ltd. , Formerly Known as DLF Retail Developers Ltd. & DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. - Consumer"]- ["Moradbad Instructure Development Pvt. Ltd. VS Novo Impex - Consumer"]- ["H. G. Jain VS Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer"]- ["KINETIC ENGINEERING (P) LTD. VS SANTOSH KUMAR PRASAD - Consumer"]- ["COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX LKO. VS MASKAT MOTORS PVT. LTD. - Allahabad"]- ["HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. vs P.R. MEENA & ANR. - Consumer State"]- ["HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. vs P.R. MEENA & ANR. - Consumer State"]- ["KIA MOTORS (LANKA) LTD VS. CONSUMER AFFAIRS AUTHORITY AND OTHERS"]
Purchasing vehicles for business use is common for companies, but what happens when those vehicles turn out to be defective? A frequent question arises: If a company purchases vehicles which become defective, will it come under consumer protection? The answer is generally yes, provided certain conditions are met. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now updated as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but many precedents stem from the 1986 Act), companies can often qualify as 'consumers' even for commercial purchases, entitling them to remedies like repair, replacement, refund, or compensation. This blog explores the legal landscape, key judgments, and practical steps, drawing from established case law. RAJIV GULATI VS TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. - Consumer (2008)BISHAMBER NATH SIKKA VS TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANR - Consumer (2008)
The Consumer Protection Act defines a 'consumer' broadly, extending protections beyond individual buyers. Importantly, courts have ruled that vehicles bought for commercial purposes still qualify the purchaser as a 'consumer' under the Act, as long as they are not resold in the ordinary course of business. For instance, a public limited company purchasing cars for its directors qualifies, even if for business use. BHAGIRATHI KRISHNAN VS HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED - Consumer (2009)Comart Lithographers Limited VS General Motors India Ltd.
In M/S. RICHA & CO. vs DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. & ORS., it was held: A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. This principle extends to companies, emphasizing use over resale intent. RSD Leasing Inc. vs Navistar Int'l Corp. - 2023 Supreme(US)(ca2) 190 further notes that a company purchasing goods to 'use' them, even intending resale after use, may still qualify, though pure dealers might not.
The Act defines a 'defect' as any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. BISHAMBER NATH SIKKA VS TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANR - Consumer (2008)
Manufacturing faults in new vehicles, such as power steering issues or engine problems, clearly fall under this. Courts have observed: If a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied... a person who purchases a vehicle, maybe a luxury Accent car or a small car, would not be satisfied, if it is a defective vehicle. VINAY KUMAR MISHRA vs MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED & ANR. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 58Bajaj Auto Ltd. VS Santosh S. Tari
Even without pinpointing the exact cause, if the vehicle doesn't perform properly, the warranty is breached. Though the burden to prove the defect would be on the consumer it must be understood that the consumer is not bound to pin-point the precise nature of defects or its cause of source. GULZAR ABDUL RAHIM MULLA VS MANAGER, AUTO INDUSTRIES GOA PVT. LTD.SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED VS MADHABANANDA MOHANTY
Both manufacturers and dealers bear joint and several liability for defective vehicles. In BISHAMBER NATH SIKKA VS TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANR - Consumer (2008), the judgment explicitly states that the manufacturer and dealer are jointly responsible for defects and deficiencies in service. This holds even for commercial vehicles. Satyam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. VS Mukesh Singh
A key example: In RAJIV GULATI VS TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. - Consumer (2008), persistent power steering defects led to an order for Rs. 2 lakhs in compensation for mental agony and financial loss. Dealers cannot escape by claiming minor issues; if an entire engine is replaced shortly after purchase, it indicates inherent manufacturing defects—res ipsa loquitur applies. Satyam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. VS Mukesh Singh
Courts typically order:- Replacement of the vehicle or parts BHAGIRATHI KRISHNAN VS HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED - Consumer (2009)GULZAR ABDUL RAHIM MULLA VS MANAGER, AUTO INDUSTRIES GOA PVT. LTD.- Refund of the purchase price BHAGIRATHI KRISHNAN VS HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED - Consumer (2009)- Compensation for mental agony, harassment, financial loss, and litigation costs RAJIV GULATI VS TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. - Consumer (2008)- Repair with warranties, including interest on delayed remedies BISHAMBER NATH SIKKA VS TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANR - Consumer (2008)
In one case, a defective Tata Indica led to replacement, 12% interest from surrender date, and costs. GULZAR ABDUL RAHIM MULLA VS MANAGER, AUTO INDUSTRIES GOA PVT. LTD. Problems in new vehicles cause distress and inconvenience, warranting compensation. Bajaj Auto Ltd. VS Santosh S. Tari
During warranty periods, defective parts must be replaced free, as noted in tax-related contexts where reimbursements occur post-consumer claim. M/S COMMERCIAL AUTOSALES PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P. LUCKNOW
Claims must generally be filed within three years from the cause of action—purchase or defect discovery. Late filings are barred. AKHIL BHARTIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT VS SIMPSON & CO. LTD. - Consumer (1993) Prompt action is essential; delays dismissed complaints despite merits. AKHIL BHARTIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT VS SIMPSON & CO. LTD. - Consumer (1993)
Manufacturers/dealers should prioritize quality control and warranties to avoid joint liability. Satyam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. VS Mukesh Singh
Companies purchasing defective vehicles generally enjoy consumer protections, with remedies like replacement or compensation available against manufacturers and dealers jointly. Act swiftly within limitation periods, and leverage precedents showing broad 'consumer' definitions. While these insights draw from cases like RAJIV GULATI VS TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. - Consumer (2008), BISHAMBER NATH SIKKA VS TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANR - Consumer (2008), BHAGIRATHI KRISHNAN VS HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED - Consumer (2009), and others, laws evolve—consult a legal professional for case-specific advice. This is general information, not legal counsel.
References:1. RAJIV GULATI VS TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. - Consumer (2008): Compensation for power steering defects.2. BISHAMBER NATH SIKKA VS TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANR - Consumer (2008): Defect definition and joint liability.3. BHAGIRATHI KRISHNAN VS HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED - Consumer (2009): Commercial purchases as consumer.4. AKHIL BHARTIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT VS SIMPSON & CO. LTD. - Consumer (1993): Limitation bars.5. Additional: VINAY KUMAR MISHRA vs MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED & ANR. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 58, GULZAR ABDUL RAHIM MULLA VS MANAGER, AUTO INDUSTRIES GOA PVT. LTD., M/S. RICHA & CO. vs DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. & ORS., etc.
#ConsumerRights, #DefectiveVehicles, #LegalConsumerProtection
A person who purchases an autorickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. ... The complainant is a private limited company running a diagnostic clinic and alleges that X-ray machine purchased by the complainant from the opposite party was defective. ... A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to ope....
... (v) Respondent-assessee replaces defective parts of vehicles of consumer from his own stock. ... (hereinafter referred to as the ‘manufacturer’) to the consumer in respect to its product namely motor vehicles, under which, parts fitted in the vehicle are replaced, if claimed by a consumer and found defective during warranty period. ... Tata Motors Ltd., purchases various parts and vehicles and effects sale to purchasers. After s....
A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. ... A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. ... ORDER ... Vinay Kumar, Member—The Consumer Complaint No.236 of 2012 has been filed by M/s. Richa & #HL_STAR....
Respondent-assessee replaces defective parts of vehicles of fitted in the vehicle are replaced, if claimed by a consumer and found defective during warranty period. ... are taxable at the point of sale to consumer, therefore, Form 3-A was issued on the purchase of motor vehicles as well as (hereinafter referred to as the 'consumer') ceases after the vehicles offered by the manufacturer to the consumer, is reimbursed by the/
A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. ... A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. ... For example an X-Ray Machine purchased by the Complainant and found defective is considered to be for a com....
A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. ... A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. ... The appellant’s case was that the machine was not only supplied with delay of over six months but also was a defe....
This itself shows that the goods supplied were defective.” ... RP No. 1053/2016, decided on 03.12.2019, ( 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1691), this Commission observed: “In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied. …..Further, a person who purchases a vehicle ... , maybe a luxury Accent car or a small car, would not be satisfied, if it is a defective vehicle. ... That is a statutory mandate and that mandate also operates in respect of goods, whose defect is ....
Further, in such cases, the manufacturing company is not justified in protracting litigation, merely because it has the money power. Further, a person who purchases a vehicle, may be luxury Accent car or a small car; would not be satisfied, if it is a defective vehicle. ... The consumer purchases the vehicle for his use and enjoyment and if there are problems within a few days of its purchase, it is bound to cause him distress and inconvenience in taking the vehicle to the Service Station of the Opposit....
Likewise, the text of the statute does not illuminate whether a company that purchases a good intending both to, say, “use” it and to resell it immediately after that “use” qualifies as a 3 “consumer.” ... Finally, it is undisputed that RSD “does not purchase trucks to transport goods or people for itself or for other client[s],” id. at 230, and that RSD is a registered dealer of vehicles in Vermont, although RSD underscores that it is a registered dealer of “used #HL_S....
Further a person who purchases a vehicle may be a luxury accent car or a small car, would not be satisfied if it is a defective vehicle. ... In other countries even if there is aggressive marketing, defective vehicles are easily FA/118/2016 D.O.D.: 24.11.2023 referred to various warranty policy for defective parts etc. ... We do not understand how the tyre and rim can come off the shaft....
In such circumstances, we concur with the finding of the learned District Forum that it is a serious deficiency on the part of the dealer as well as the manufacturer. There is no justification or any cogent explanation brought on record on behalf of the appellant as to why the defects were not removed and the vehicle was plying smoothly on the road. We further find that the liability of the dealer as well as manufacture is joint and several. The consumer, who has paid full price of a new vehicle, cannot be cheated by supplying a defective vehicle.
Hence there is no merit in the second contention raised by OP No. 1 and 2 to stall us from entertaining this Complaint. That doesn’t mean that it can be held that Complainant Company had purchased the vehicles for commercial purpose. If public limited company purchases Car for its Directors and Car is found to be defective or the Dealer is not giving after sale service properly, then legal action for such deficiency in service can very well be brought by the Complainant Company in the Consumer Fora and there is no legal hitch in entertaining such a complaint. Simply because....
If the vehicle is defective a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. It could be that some errors are insignificant but there may be many others which substantially impair use of the vehicle. Though the burden to prove the defect would be on the consumer it must be understood that the consumer is not bound to pin-point the precise nature of defects or its cause of source. It is not always necessary for the consumer to give expert testimony though if he does so it will add to the weight of the evidence.
Though the burden to prove the defect would be on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pin point the precise nature of defects or its cause or source. The warranty which is given for a vehicle is a warranty for whole of the vehicle and when it is found that the vehicle does not perform properly the warranty would be taken to have been breached even if no individual part could be identified as defective. If the vehicle is defective a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. It could be that some errors are insignif....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
