Repainted car sold as New; Does Court hold it manufacturing defect?

(Landmark Judgments by Supreme Court on the subject)

“It is a case where the vehicle was deliver to the complainant by repainting and matching with the original colour. It is not the report that prior to repainting the vehicle in question had met with accident or it was an old vehicle Rather it is a case of normal scratches bound to develop while transporting the vehicle in trailer from factory to the agency” said state commission Haryana Panchkula.

SC confirms it’s not a case of manufacturing defect

By Dr Prem Lata

Case: Mahaveer Stone Crushing Co V/S  Tata Motors Ltd (SC)

Civil appeal No 6730 of 2010 decided on 24.03.2022

Issues: Repainted & Repaired vehicle sold-Whether it is manufacturing defect

Facts leading to the above case

The complainant purchase new vehicle on 10.2.1999

After about five months there was an occasion that he took vehicle to workshop for service when it is observed that vehicle was accidental and repainted. Complainant comes before the consumer forum, files Complaint before District Forum Gurgaon under CP Act 1986 and claimed relief for re-placement. Of vehicle. Dealer as well Manufacturer were made parties .Expert made report on 27.1.2000 confirmed the fact .District forum ordered for replacement with cost of litigation

Matter comes before State Commission in appeal and State commission observed there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle neither it was accidental. It was normal scratches while transporting from factory to agency but no manufacturing defect found which could entitle the complainant for replacement of vehicle .Hence sum of 50000/- granted to complainant as compensation. This Order is against Tata motors Ltd, the manufacturer

National commission confirms the order.

SC ordered for Inspection which was done on 15.06.2003 through court.

SC observed

       I.            Vehicle found repaired from left side, right side and back

    II.            Found repainted 80% and 20% had original paint

 III.            Paint work done was discoloured and turned yellow

 IV.            Left front door was not working/the key supplied were  not matching the slot of lock

Supreme Court noted that manufacturing defect is in fact a defect affecting vehicle precisely procedural or technical aspect No manufacturing defect could be identified but new vehicle in this condition is bodily damaged. Hence replacement not ordered compensation to the tune of Rs 1, 60000/-awarded.

Old Model car sold against new booking

But we have yet another case wherein it is apparent on face of it that Old Model car was sold as new one and consumer now wants replacement

Rajiv Shukla V/S Gold Crush Sales & Services

Civil Appeal No 5928/2022

Decided by SC on 08.09.2022

Bench J M. R. SHAH, J KRISHNA MURARI

Facts leading to dispute are that it is a case of one Rajiv Shukla who booked the Vehicle Tata Victa  GX TC car  by paying booking amount to M/S Gold Crush Sales And Services A receipt was also issued for payment on the same day . Thereafter he paid Rs 5,30,000/-the entire amount of total consideration Though booking was made one year back but vehicle was delivered on 26,05.2006

Rajiv Shukla found that he has been delivered the old model of 2005 which has already run 1000/- km prior to delivery of vehicle to him.

On investigation it was revealed that the said car was used as Demo Test Drive Vehicle prior to delivery to Rajiv Shukla

Complainant lodged an FIR with police for fraud on the part of dealer but matter could not be settled.The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the prayers to replace aforesaid used car Tata Victa GX TC Model No 2005 with new car /vehicle to him The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed Gold Crush Sales & Services

The respondent No.1 the dealer   to take back the delivered vehicle and deliver a new car

to the complainant against the previously deposited amount. The District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs.5, 000/­ towards the mental agony besides a sum of Rs.2500/ towards litigation costs.   District Forum specifically gave a finding that the delivered car was   used   car   and   was   being   used   as  “Demo­Test   Drive Vehicle”.

The   order   passed   by   the   District   Forum was confirmed   by   the   State   Commission.    

The National Commission while   exercising   the revisional jurisdiction, has set aside the findings of facts recorded by the District Forum as well as the State Commission   and directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lakh to be paid to the complainant.

Matter comes to SC in appeal

Supreme Court observed that National Commission has materially erred in   upsetting   the   findings   of   facts   recorded   by   the   District Forum and the State Commission and held that   the car delivered was a used car

It is further observed that National Commission   in   exercise   of   the   revisional   jurisdiction. under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Could not have interfered   with the evidence taken on record by lower commissions

SC order

Once complainant paid the full sale consideration for a new car, the duty was cast upon the dealer   to   supply   the   new   car   which   was   booked and if not done so, it would tantamount to dishonesty and unfair trade practice.

In view of the above the impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.2082 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed  by   the   District  Forum   dated   29.04.2011  passed   in Consumer   Case   No.397   of   2007   confirmed   by   the   State Commission   vide  judgment   and  order  dated  19.09.2014  in Appeal No.910 of 2011 are  restored.  The Respondent no.1 the dealer engaged in sale of vehicles is hereby directed to comply with the judgment and order

 

Conclusion

There is a difference between Defective car and old car. In the case Mahaveer Stone Crushing Co V/S  Tata Motors Ltd (SC) court observed that car bears defect due to scratches in the process of transportation whereas in the case cited above in Rajiv Shukla it is proved through cogent evidence that an old used car as Demo Test Drive Car was sold as new one

By Dr Prem Lata

 

 

Previous

Next