/BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER

APPEAL No. 3225/2011

Ford India Private Limited,

S.P.Koil Post, Chengalpattu,

Tamil Nadu-603 204,

Represented by its

Authorized Signatory

J.Dushyanth

(By Shri/Smt.M/s.Dua Associates,  Adv.  )

……….Appellant/s.

-Versus-

1. Sri.Hariprasad Manyam,

S/o. Manyam Naganna,

No.23, Mounshree layout,

Kottanur Dinne Main Road,

JP Nagar, 8^th Phase,

Bangalore-560076

2. Lathangi Motors Private Limited,

Having its Showroom at No.448,

Opp. IIMB Bannerghatta Road,

Bangalore-560076

(R1-By Sri/Smt. K.M.Basavaraj, Adv.)

……….Respondent/s

: O R D E R :

BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – MEMBER

The Appeal No.3225/2011 have been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated 18-8-2011 passed by 3^rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and prays to set-aside the order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The complainant had purchased a Ford Figo vehicle from the 2^nd Opposite Party for a price of Rs.6,25,973-00 inclusive of all taxes. The 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of that vehicle. It is alleged that right from the date of purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle is continuously having one or the other recurring problems by virtue of the manufacturing defects apparent in the running of the vehicle. Noticing of gaps between the body leading to rattling noise that appears after 15 days of service, wind cutting noise from the windows and doors, brake application problem, brake sound problem, abnormal noises from wheel and tyres, overheating, glass noise from the windows while operating in lower speeds, improper gap that exist at various points of the vehicle, noise from the fender, roof rattling, noise from engine and clutch, formation of mist in the head lamps leading to poor visibility while driving in the night, low pickup in lesser gear with or without the A/c bearing functional, problems with the fixing of doors resulting in vibration and rattling and also opening of the door when passenger occupies the seat and makes an arm rest, problem with the music system, formation of paint air bubble due to corrosion, suspension noise, power windows and anti-theft locking. The said problems are recurring on a consistent basis for the complainant. Within one week after the purchase i.e. on 30-3-2010, the complainant noticed that the vehicle was making some noise at the time of running and there was no application of brake at certain times and abnormal noise was found on application of the brake. When he took the vehicle to the service station of the Opposite Party, it was noticed that the noise was due to clutch, fan motor was also jammed which has caused over heating the brake pad was also replaced assuring that the problems were resolved by replacing the parts of the vehicle. It is stated that even after that replacement, the brake pad problem was again faced on 26-4-2010. The brake was not properly applying in lower speed also and again he went to the service station of the Opposite Party and on testing, it was found that the brake had some problem and it needs to be replaced so the entire brake assembly was replaced. After sometime, there was noise coming from the vehicle’s wheel and he gave the vehicle for serving on 22-5-2010 and upon the complaint the tyres were replaced. The engineers of the Opposite Party checked the vehicle, but failed to analyze or rectify the defect. Even after repeated requests, the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 were unable to rectify the defects in the vehicle. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties failed hear the problems of the complainant and continued to conduct harshly whenever the complainant met the 2^nd Opposite Party. The acts of the Opposite Party clearly show the deficiency in service. The vehicle was guaranteed for a trouble free services for period of two years from the date of purchase vide its service card issued by the dealer. Hence, giving rise to such defects, repeatedly in a short period, goes to show that there was manufacturing defect. Hence, this complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid by him with compensation.      

3.       The 1^st Opposite Party appeared through his advocate filed version and admitted certain allegations of the complainant and denied all others and admitted the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 24-3-2010 and all repairs were done in the same year commencing from 30-3-2010 to 31-12-2010 and the last repair was done on 5-2-2011. The 1^st Opposite Party further contended that the complaint is not maintainable as it is filed by misrepresenting and suppression of material facts. The 1^st Opposite Party further contended that, the warranty of the vehicle stipulates that the Opposite Party obliged only to repair and replace the defective parts of the vehicle. If few parts of the vehicle needed replacement, the 1^st Opposite Party had removed those parts and replaced the same with new parts free of costs and has rectified the problems which alleged by the complainant. The complainant merely alleges defects in his vehicle, but had not indicated as to what was the inherent defect in the vehicle. The 1^st Opposite Party further contended that without submitting the vehicle for examination by an independent expert, the manufacturing defect cannot be substantiated as alleged by the complainant and hence whenever any defects were brought to the notice of the OP that has been attended and because of it there is no deficiency in service hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.       The 2^nd Opposite Party has also appeared through his counsel and filed version contended that he is the authorized dealer doing the business of sales and services to the cars manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party further contended that, the 2^nd Opposite Party tested the vehicle and replaced the parts which were defectives and hence there is no deficiency of service. If there is any manufacturing defect of the vehicle it can it relates only to 1^st Opposite Party who is the manufacturer of the vehicle and the 2^nd Opposite Party is concerned only with sales and services and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.6,25,973-00 to the complainant by taking back the vehicle in question. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. The complainant shall deliver the vehicle along with all the necessary documents such as RC. Insurance policy, documents required for transfer of the vehicle land insurance policy. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.10,000-00 as costs of the litigation.

6.       Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Commission.   

7.       We have heard the arguments.

8.       Perused the Appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and material on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had purchased a Ford Figo vehicle from the respondent No.2 for a price of Rs.6,25,973-00 inclusive of all taxes on 24-3-2010. It is also admitted facts that all repairs were done in the same year commencing from 30-3-2010 to 31-12-2010 and the last repair was done on 5-2-2011 from the purchase of said vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that, recommended to the service centre has replaced the entire brake assembly and tyres on two occasions, replacement of music system and anti-theft system, headlights, brake pad and the door regulators assembly and BPSM kit.

9.       The allegation of the respondent No.1 is that the vehicle has manufacturing defects hence, prays for refund of the amount. Per-contra, the appellant in his appeal memo submits that, it is mandatory on the part of the complainant to have the vehicle tested by an expert as mandated under the Consumer Protection Act which was not done in the present case. The Hon’ble commission hold that its statutory duty as contemplated under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not referred the vehicle for test and analysis to an approved laboratory and as per terms and conditions of warranty of the vehicle, the appellant is obliged only to repair or replace the defective parts and not the entire vehicle. 

10.     Now, the point will arise for our consideration is that, whether is there any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle?

11.     Pursued the order passed by the District Commission and material on record, we noticed that, the respondent No.1 has purchased a Ford Figo vehicle from the respondent No.2 for a price of Rs.6,25,973-00 inclusive all taxes and within one years from 30-3-2010 to 31-12-2010, so many repairs were done and replaced the spare-parts were done regarding the said vehicle. To prove his allegations, the respondent No.1 has produced Job cards before the lower commission and it is also admitted by the appellant and Respondent No.2 that within one year many repairs and replacement of parts has been done in the vehicle. The common man was purchased the vehicle for his satisfaction by spending a lot of money and each time he went to workshop for repair, it was the time loss and earning loss to a common man. In a new vehicle so many defects cannot be expected by the person. Moreover, to take the vehicle for repairs to service centre again and again and replace the parts every time and even though parts were replaced, problem could not be cured completely. Hence, it seems the vehicle has manufacturing defect. Each and every allegations of the respondent No.1 except manufacturing defect had admitted by the appellant and then it is not necessary to the respondent No.1 to prove his allegations by producing expert evidence that there is manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. But we also agreed with the terms and conditions of warranty of the vehicle and as per terms and conditions the appellant is obliged only to repair or replace for defective parts of the vehicle and not replace the entire vehicle. However, if defect is found in the new vehicle and parts were replaced again and again within one year, we consider that the vehicle has manufacturing defects.

12.     Hence, considering the facts, discussion made here we are of the opinion that there is manufacturing defect in the said vehicle as alleged by the respondent No.1 and hence the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and we proceed to pass the following:-          

: O R D E R :

The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 

 The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.

Lady Member.                                            Judicial Member