Theory of defects in Vehicles and liabilities of Seller & Manufacturere

( Landmark Judgments )

Part-1

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

Case : 1. Mahaveer Stone Crushing Co V/S  Tata Motors Ltd(SC)

Civil appeal No 6730 of 2010

Decided on 24.03.2022

Facts :

1)Complaint before District Forum Gurugaon under CP Act 1986

·         That new vehicle purchase on 10.2.1999

·         When taken to workshop after five months of purchase it was observed that vehicle was accidental and claimed relief for re-placement.

·         Dealer as well Manufacturer were made parties .Expert made on 27.1.2000 confirmed the fact .District forum ordered for replacement with cost of litigation

2)State commission observed there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle neither it was accidental ,hence no manufacturing defect .It was normal scratches  while transporting from factory to agency .Hence sum of 50000/- granted to complainant as compensation

3) National commission confirms the order

4) SC Observations –,Inspection made on 15.06.2003 through court

·         Vehicle found repaired from left side,right side and back

·         Found repainted 80% and 20% had original paint

·         Paint work done was discoloured and turned yellow

·         Left front door was notworking/the key supplied were  not matching the slot of lock ,not opening with the keys

No manufacturing defect could identified but new vehicle in this condtion is physical damage .Hence compensation to the tune of Rs 1,60000/-

 

Title -Old Model car sold against new booking consumer now wants replacement

Case No -2  Rajiv Shukla V/S Gold Crush Sales & Services

Civil Appeal No 5928/2022

Decided by SC on 08.09.2022

Facts

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 servicesA receipt ws also issued fo 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  pass the order to opposite party to replace aforesaid delivered   used   car   Tata   Victa   GX   TC   Model   no.   2005,and   delivered   new   car/vehicle   to   the   consumer.

2.1 The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent no.1 – dealer to take back the delivered vehicle and in lieu thereof to 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.   

 The District Forum specifically gave a finding that the delivered car 4 was   used   car   and   was   being   used   as  “Demo­Test   Drive Vehicle”.

2.2 The   order   passed   by   the   District   Forum   came   to   be confirmed   by   the   State   Commission.     However,   by   the impugned   judgment   and   order

The National Commission and   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

National Commission has materially erred in   upsetting   the   findings   of   facts   recorded   by   the   District Forum and the State Commission that the car delivered was a used car and not the old one

It is submitted that on appreciation of evidence on record,   both,   the   District   Forum   as   well   as   the   State Commission gave specific findings that the car delivered was used car.

It is observed  that the findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which were on appreciation of entire evidence could not have been   set   aside   and/or   interfered   with   by   the   National Commission   in   exercise   of   the   revisional   jurisdiction. under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Even otherwise the findings recorded by the National Commission on the delivered car is contrary to the findings on record.  It is submitted that considering the test drive/demo   slip   of   the   delivered   car   having   Chassis   No. 939353, it was established and proved that the delivered car was used as demo/test drive car.

Hence 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 would tantamount to dishonesty and unfair trade practice.

SC order

In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the impugned judgment and order dated  04.01.2016  passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.2082 of 2015 is hereby 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 hereby restored.  The Respondent no.1 is hereby directed to comply with the judgment and order

Conclusion

There is a difference between Defective car and old car . In the case of Mahaveer Stone Crushing Co V/S  Tata Motors Ltd(SC) court observed that car bears defect due to scratcghes 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

 

 

 

 

 

Previous

Next