Quotations from landmark Judgments
(Vehicle
Defects )
Title -1
Complainant cannot be
paid twice for the loss, Courts maintained
“Complainant cannot be
paid twice for the loss. He can either be paid by Insurance or by the Hotel for
his actual loss. But Hotel cannot be absolved from the responsibility of paying
compensation for the mental harassment one undergoes. Hence Rs 1, 00,000/- is
directed to be paid to the complainant apart from the cost of car as paid by
insurance company”
Bombay Brazzerie v. Mulchand
Agarwal, I (2003) CPJ 4 (NC)
Taj Mahal Hotel Versus United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors. I (2018) Cpj 546 (NC
“Manufacturer & Dealer shall pay Rs.3,00,000/-, jointly and
severally, to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- each, to the complainant for mental
agony he has undergone
Since insurance company had has already paid an amount of Rs.1,50,702/- in
favour of Garyson Motors Private Limited, which has repaired the vehicle. Dealer will hand over the vehicle in question to the appellant,
immediately, on receipt of payment from insurance company”
Tata Motors Ltd. &Others V/S Dr
Anuj Paul Maini &others decided on 18.02.2014
Title -2
Repainted
& Repaired vehicle sold it is not a manufacturing defect
“There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle neither
it was accidental , It was normal scratches while transporting from factory to agency No
manufacturing defect could identified but new vehicle in this condtion is
physical damage .Hence compensation to the tune of Rs 1,60000/- to the
complainant ”
Mahaveer Stone Crushing Co V/S
Tata Motors Ltd(SC) Civil appeal No 6730 of 2010 dated 24.03.2022
Title
-3
Expert opinion for declaring
manufacturing defect in vehicle not necessary if could not be repaird
trying time and again time
National Commission held that “the car
went to the workshop as many as eleven times. Defect was admitted right in the
beginning even before issue of invoice which amounts to manufacturing defect
and it is presumed that it might have caused accident .Hence there is
absolutely no need to take expert opinion at this stage. ”
Tata Motors Ltd.
&Others V/S Dr Anuj Paul Maini &others decided on 18.02.2014
This
is the case where court has made certain points very clear:
1. In
case by repairing or replacing any part, vehicle works well, there is no need
to replace the vehicle with the new one.
2. If
vehicle is bearing a defect at the initial stage and knowing full well a
defective vehicle is sold, complainant is entitled to get compensation for
mental agony and harassment he has undergone.
3. If
the vehicle is sent for repair time and again and cannot be repaired, there is
no need to further obtain expert opinion for declaring manufacturing
defect.
Where
manufacturer was also made responsible ,No expert opinion required
“From the material on record, it is clear that the
car was defective at the time of delivery. There is no doubt that there were
defects in the paint and that the piston rings of the engine had gone. The
submission that the piston rings got spoiled after the delivery was taken,
cannot be accepted. The agent of both parties had acknowledged that the piston
rings were defective. They would not have so acknowledged unless it was a
defect at the time of the delivery. ”
Jose Philip
Mampillil V/S Premier Automobiles Ltd. And Anr on 27 January, 2004(SC)
Title
-4
Replacement
not suggested if part replaced & vehicle works well
SC has
held that “where defects in various parts of a car are established, direction
for replacement of the car would not be justified. Replacement of
the entire item or replacement of defective parts only called for.”
Maruti Udyog Ltd.
Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another [(2006) 4 SCC 644]
Surendra Kumar Jain
Vs. R.C. Bhargava & Ors. [III (2006) CPJ 382 (NC)],
Title -5
Dealer and Manufacturer is principal to
principal and not as principal and agent
,SC had held that relationship between
the dealer and manufacturer is principal to principal and not as principal and
agent .Hence both are liable for their own wrongs .
Case-1
Indian Oil Corporation V Consumer Protection Council Kerala 2004 ,SC
“Honda
Cars India Limited vs Sudesh Berry before the Supreme Court of
India, the apex court overturned a decision of National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (“NCDRC“) and reiterated that a vehicle
manufacturer cannot be held liable for any defects in the performance of a
dealer and/or an authorised service centre while servicing vehicles.
“As the
facts on record show that the car was used by respondents no.1 to 3 for more
than 10 years, whereafter it suffered an accident. There is not an iota of
material that the accident occurred as a result of any manufacturing defect. If
there be any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in
rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle, the manufacturer of the
vehicle cannot be held liable”.
Case-2 Honda Cars
India Limited vs Sudesh Berry on 12 November, 2021 SC
By Dr Prem Lata
Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.
Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,