CASE-4

Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Abhishek Khanna & Others Civil Appeal No. 5785 Of 2019 (Supreme Court )

Bench -Dr Dhananjaya ,Y Chandrachud,  Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee.

Decided on –January11, 2021

 

Law Point

1.      Whether the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 must be given primacy over the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;

 

Supreme Court on the issue of Supremacy of RERA Act over CP Act made it clear that both the acts are equal and not conflicting or inconsistent to each other Observation and Verdict by SC as per the Provisions of CP Act & RERA Act

·         Consumer Protection Act not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This was clear in section 3 of CP Act 1986 and also Section 100 of CP Act 2019

·         Section 79 of the RERA Act bars any civil proceedings in Real estate matters but does not bar Consumer Commissions  to initiation  proceedings before it, Consumer commissions are not civil courts

·          Section 88 "Application of other laws not barred" - The Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2016) the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

·         Similar is the provision in Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section -3 and section 100 of CP Act 2019.

·         Section 71(1) of the RERA Act entitles a complainant who had initiated proceedings under the CP Act before the RERA Act came into force, to withdraw the proceedings under the CP Act with the permission of the Forum or Commission and file an appropriate application before the adjudicating officer under the RERA Act

Case -5.

Honda Cars India Limited vs. Sudesh Berry CIVIL APPEAL NO.6802 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11986/2020)

Decided on 12 November, 2021

Facts

 A Car was purchased by the complainant from “Honda City Cars” in the year 1999. It worked fine till 26.09.2010 after ten years of use, it met with an accident and suffered huge damages the car was taken to the authorized service centre for repairs. The surveyor estimated cost of repairs to the tune of Rs.1, 50,000/-Service centre later enhanced the charges of repair from Rs. 15000/- to Rs 240000/-

Matter comes to  District Forum ,dealer and service centre found  guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice for enhancing the charges of repair from Rs.1,50,000/-

State commission confirmed District forum order with observation that Complainant had not shown any manufacturing defect to dealer or service centre at the time of delivery of the damaged vehicle for repair, hence no liability can be fixed on manufacturer ,OP No -2 in the case .

National Commission found that for some reason or the other, the car was not repaired and every time whenever approached, the estimated cost of “repairs” was at an escalated rate. However, considering the facts and circumstances on record, National Commission held  

“We, therefore, in the interest of justice, request Dealer and manufacturer, the Respondents No.1 & 2 in the case to provide a brand new Honda City car to the Petitioners on payment of a nominal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. This would be towards the goodwill gesture.”

Legal Issues;

·         Whether any liability can be fastened to manufacturer incise of dealer &service centre fail to give satisfactory repair to accidental car.

·         Whether there was any unfair trade practices followed by Dealer ,service centre and Manufacturer

 SC Held; as the facts on record show that the car was used by complainant in the original case for more than 10 years, where after 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 -6. 

TATA Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 125

( Similar case with same issue)

Legal issue –

·         Whether selling old and used car by dealer holds manufacturer liable

·         Whether dealer and manufacturer hold Principal to principal relations

Facts

Facts admitted in this case that the car in dispute was make of 2009 but the registration was done for the 1st time in the name of the Complainant in 2011 It was a used vehicle which had travelled almost 622 kms at the time of drive test. In the light of these facts and observations, the District forum held that there was deficiency in the service committed by the dealer and the manufacturer. The manufacturer preferred an appeal, State Commission dismissed the appeal. National commission also confirmed State commission Order

Hence this appeal by Manufacturer. The manufacturer highlighted that the crux of the complaint was that he was misled by the dealer, and an old car with old model of 2009  having already driven 622 km was sold to him in 2011.There was no allegation of manufacturing defect

SC Observed

Found fundamental error in holding manufacturer deficient because –

Invoice by which the car was sold to the dealer is dated 28th of February 2009 to contend that the title to the property, i.e. the car in question had passed to the dealer in 2009.

No manufacturing defect is pointed out.

Manufacturer and dealer have Principal to Principal relation and not of Principal to agent. In the present case manufacturer observing this kind of mal practices had cancelled the dealership contract with Tata Motors which further establishes the character of their contractual relationship

Manufacturer not held liable for the wrongs of dealer

                                                                    

Previous

Next