STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
(Additional Bench)
Appeal No. | : | 275 of 2023 |
Date of Institution | : | 11.10.2023 |
Date of Decision | : | 18.04.2024 |
KAS Cars Pvt. Ltd., Plot NO.171, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized person.
... Appellant.
Versus
1. Inderjit Kaur w/o Sh.Shaleen Singh, R/o H.No.508, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh.
2. FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office:-1st Address: 11601 (III), 16th Floor, B Wing, The Capital, Plot #C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai PIN 400051 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person
2nd Address: Office No.401 A, Giga Space IT Park, Delta-I, Viman Nagar, Pune Nagar Road, Pune 411014
3. M/s WSL Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., D-171, Industrial Area, Phase-1,Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized person.
..... Respondents
Appeal under Section 41 the Consumer Protection Act,2019 against order dated 01.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.398/2020.
Argued by: Sh.Amit Jhanji, Sr.Advocate assisted by Sh.Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1
S/Sh.Rishab Raj Jain & Naveen Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.2
Sh.Harsh Nagra, Advocate for respondent No.3.
__________________________________________________________
Appeal No. | : | 296 of 2023 |
Date of Institution | : | 27.10.2023 |
Date of Decision | : | 18.04.2024 |
FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., having its registered Office at office No.401 A, Giga Space IT Park, Delta-I, Viman Nagar, Pune Nagar Road, Pune 411014
... Appellant.
Versus
1. Inderjit Kaur w/o Sh.Shaleen Singh, R/o H.No.508, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh.
2. KAS Cars Pvt. Ltd., Plot NO.171, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.
3. WSL Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., D-144, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Sector-73, Mohali (Punjab)
..... Respondents
Appeal under Section 41 the Consumer Protection Act,2019 against order dated 01.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.398/2020.
Argued by: S/Sh.Rishab Raj Jain & Naveen Sharma, Advocates for the appellant.
Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1
Sh.Amit Jhanji, Sr.Advocate assisted by Sh.Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2
Sh.Harsh Nagra, Advocate for respondent No.3.
_________________________________________________________
Appeal No. | : | 313 of 2023 |
Date of Institution | : | 14.11.2023 |
Date of Decision | : | 18.04.2024 |
Inderjit Kaur w/o Sh.Shaleen Singh, R/o H.No.508, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh
... Appellant.
Versus
- FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office:-
1st Address: 11601 (III), 16th Floor, B Wing, The Capital, Plot #C-70, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai PIN 400051 through its Managing Director/Authorised Person
2nd Address: Office No.401 A, Giga Space IT Park, Delta-I, Viman Nagar, Pune Nagar Road, Pune 411014
2. KAS Cars Pvt. Ltd., Plot NO.171, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Person
3. M/s WSL Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.171, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Person
..... Respondents
Appeal under Section 41 the Consumer Protection Act,2019 against order dated 01.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.398/2020
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER
Argued by: Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant alongwith Mrs.Inderjit Kaur, appellant in person.
S/Sh.Rishab Raj Jain & Naveen Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.1.
Sh.Amit Jhanji, Sr.Advocate assisted by Sh.Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2
Sh.Harsh Nagra, Advocate for respondent No.3.
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
This order will dispose of aforementioned three appeals bearing Nos. 275 of 2023 titled as KAS Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs Inderjit Kaur & Ors., A/296 of 2023 titled as FCA India Automobiles Private Limited Vs Inderjit Kaur & Ors and A/13 of 2023 titled as Inderjit Kaur Vs FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. all arising out of one and the common order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh whereby complaint of the complainant Inderjit Kaur was allowed in the following terms ;
“Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to refund the cost of vehicle i.e. Rs.61,61,000/- jointly & severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the refund amount @6% per annum from the date of order till its actual realization. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing her immense mental agony & harassment due to supply of a defective car, apart from payment of Rs.15000/- towards litigation expenses.
Since the vehicle undisputedly is lying with OP No.3, an authorized agency/dealer/centre of OP No.1, so the OPs No.1 or OP No.2, as the case may be, may collect it from OP No.3 or manage it at their own level.”
2. The facts are being taken from appeal No.275 of 2023 titled as KAS Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs Inderjit Kaur & ors.
As per facts of the case, the complainant, who is a reputed doctor and running Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Unit, was approached by the authorized persons of OP NO.2/appellant (in this appeal) with an offer to sell car – Jeep Grand Chirokee of Billet Silver Mettalic colour with discount of Rs.17 lacs against its Ex-Showroom price of Rs.80 lacs as a part of promotional scheme on the ground that it was a Demo Car with manufacturing date as Nov., 2016 and mileage covered about 960 kms only. It was also assured at the time of sale that the car is brand new vehicle and has no defects, issues etc. of any sorts and also carries standard warranty. It was averred that being allured by the offer & assurance of the OP No.2/appellant as well as considering the reputation of the brand, the complainant purchased the said Car-Jeep Grand Chirokee from OP No.2 on 14.9.2018 for an amount of Rs.61,61,000/- after getting it financed with HDFC bank. A copy of the bill/invoice is attached as Annexure C-1. Thereafter, the vehicle was got registered vide Regd. No.CH-01-BU-0025, a copy of registration certificate is Annexure C-3. It was alleged that soon after its purchase, the car in question started giving very serious problem of getting suddenly and automatically jammed/stopped in the mid of the road while being driven irrespective of the speed, causing danger to the life of the complainant/occupants.. It was further averred that first time on 3.12.2018, the vehicle had to be towed to the workshop because it had stopped/jammed on the road while the vehicle had run only 2386 kms.; second time on 13.4.2019, the vehicle again got jammed/stopped and it was towed to the workshop while it had covered only 4544 kms.; third time on 10.7.2019, the vehicle again jammed/stopped while it had run only 7075 kms. and it was again towed to the workshop and repairs were done which cost about Rs.1.5 lacs out of which Rs.98,000/- was covered under insurance and Rs.48,000/- were paid by the complainant; fourth time on 21.9.2019 with odometer reading at 10601 kms the vehicle again breakdown on the road and towed to the OPs. It was further stated that lastly on 08.11.2019, the vehicle again stopped/jammed on the road, while 9 year old son of the complainant was in the car with her. It was then taken to the workshop of OPs and there also it did not start despite 17 attempts were made by the mechanics at the workshop to start it. It was acknowledged by the representatives of the Opposite Parties that certain parts were required to be replaced which would be imported from US and then the same would be changed and since then the car is lying with the OPs. It was further averred that due to sudden stopping/jamming of the car in mid of the road because of serious defect, the complainant and her son could have met with some untoward occurrence. It was further averred that every time the OPs assured that no defect would occur again as the issue stood resolved and the complainant kept on believing their assurance and took the car, but finally it was left with the OPs. It was further averred that the complainant requested the OPs to replace the car with new one for which she also offered to pay differential amount, but the OPs refused to do so nor refunded the cost/price of the car so paid by the complainant at the time of its purchase. A legal notice was also served upon the OPs vide Annexure C-4, which was replied to but they did not pay any heed. It was further stated that complainant’s faith stood totally shattered towards the OPs Company as she was put to a helpless position and has to suffer financial loss and mental trauma, agony and harassment due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite Parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission seeking refund of Rs.61,61,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and costs etc.
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the Opposite Party No.1/FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. contested the complaint and filed its written version stating that the complaint qua it, is not maintainable as FAC India Automobiles Private Limited sells the vehicles with manufacturer’s warranty to its authorized dealer under principal-to-principal relationship on whole sale basis, after pre-delivery inspection and once the vehicles are sold by it to its authorized dealer, its contractual obligations are limited to the reimbursement of parts under warranty. A copy of the dealership Agreement dated 18.12.2017 is Annexure OP1/2. While admitting the purchase of the vehicle in question by the complainant carrying 2 years warranty or unlimited kilometers, it is stated that on 3.12.2018 @2386 km as per odometer reading, the subject vehicle was towed to the workshop and on post inspection by the technician it was found that the wires were chewed by rats, therefore, gear shift lever was not working and after repairing the same, the subject vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 05.12.2018. It was stated that on 13.02.2019 @ 4544 km as per the odometer reading, the subject vehicle was reported to the workshop for general repairs post which the same was delivered to the complainant on 22.02.2019. It was further stated that on 21.06.2019 @ 7073 km as per the odometer reading, the subject vehicle was reported at the workshop for starting issue and post inspection, repairs were carried under Insurance Claim. Thereafter, on 10.07.2019 @ 7075 km as per the odometer reading, the second free service of the subject vehicle was conducted and then it was delivered to the Complainant. It was further stated that on 21.09.2019 @ 10601 km as per the odometer reading, the vehicle was reported to the workshop for sudden stoppage while driving and post inspection, it was found that a starting problem had occurred due to non-genuine accessory fitment i.e. GPRS done by the Complainant and the same was rectified and the subject vehicle was delivered to the Complainant. It was further stated that on 13.11.2019 @ 12280 km as per the odometer reading, the vehicle was reported to the workshop for ignition issue and post inspection, it was found that fuel pump had failed and the same was replaced under warranty. It was pleaded that since the parts were to be ordered from abroad and as the same were stuck at customs and as such the delivery of the same got delayed and the complainant was informed of the repairs conducted in the subject vehicle vide e-mail dated 16.12.2019, a copy of which is AnnexureOP-1/3. It was also pleaded that post repairs, a test drive and joint trial of the subject vehicle was conducted wherein the performance of the subject vehicle was found satisfactory and thereafter, the Complainant was informed by the OP No.1 about vehicle’s readiness vide e-mail dated 02.01.2020 and assuring the Complainant that the subject vehicle was completely roadworthy. A copy of the email dated 2.01.2020 is Annexure OP-1/4. It was further averred that the subject vehicle had been kept ready for delivery since 04.01.2020 and the Complainant has been requested several times by OP No.1 & 2 to take the delivery of the subject vehicle through calls and emails and that the Complainant was assured that the vehicle was completely roadworthy but she did not intend to take the delivery of the subject vehicle . It was further asserted that OP Nos. 1 & 2 have replaced the part under warranty and the replacement of the part does not mean that there was/is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle . It was further stated that the subject vehicle had covered more than 12280 km till date which is suffice to prove that there is no manufacturing defect in it. It was also stated that since the operations of OP No.2 were closing on 23.10.2020, so OP No.1 vide email dated 19.8.2020 requested the complainant to take delivery of the subject vehicle but no response was received from her. The other allegations were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP No.2/appellant also filed written version and while admitting factual matrix of the case, stated that the vehicle was not suffering from any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and that in case the allegations in the complaint are taken on its face value, the vehicle could not have covered more than 12,000kms. It was stated that for the first time, the vehicle was towed to the workshop on 03.12.2018 (at the odometer reading of 2386 km) wherein post inspection by the technician it was found that the wires had been chewed by rats, therefore, gear shift lever was not working. After repairing the same, the subject vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 05.12.2018; second time the subject vehicle was reported to the workshop on 13.02.2019 (at the odometer reading 4544 km) for general repairs and thereafter the subject vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 22.02.2019; third time the subject vehicle was towed to the workshop on 10.07.2019 (at the odometer reading 7075 km) for starting issue, post inspection certain parts were replaced along with wiring (bills to the insurance company were raised for replacing the wiring) and the second free service was done and the subject vehicle was delivered to the complainant; fourth time the vehicle was reported to the workshop on 21.09.2019 (at the odometer reading 10601 km) for sudden stoppage while driving and post inspection, it was found that the starting problem had occurred due to GPRS wiring which was an outside fitment done by the complainant. The said problem was rectified and the subject vehicle was delivered to the complainant. It was further stated that lastly the vehicle was reported to the workshop on 13.11.2019 (at the odometer reading 12280 km) for ignition issue wherein certain required parts were replaced under warranty and the vehicle was ready for delivery since 04.01.2020. It was further stated that the complainant was informed about the readiness of the vehicle vide email dated 02.01.2020 and on telephone as well by OP No.2 several times to take the delivery but the complainant failed to take the delivery. It was also stated that test drive was taken by the technicians of OP and the complainant was assured by the dealership that the vehicle was roadworthy and she may take the delivery, but she did not turn up and instead filed the consumer complaint alleging manufacturing defects in the vehicle. It was further stated that the problem of sudden stoppage was due to the reason that the vehicle was fitted with outside fitments instead of company approved fitments which resulted in interfering with the other fitments thereby causing issues in the vehicle functioning. It was further stated that needful had been done and the vehicle was free from any problem and was ready for delivery on 04.01.2020.It was further stated that the subject vehicle was perfectly alright and roadworthy. Other allegations were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP No.3/M/s WSL Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. also filed its written version stating that OP No. 2/appellant was erstwhile authorized dealer of vehicles of OP No.1 and ceased to be the authorized dealer of OP No.1 as it surrendered its dealership to OP No.1 and thereafter the answering OP No.3 was appointed as the authorized dealer for dealing in vehicles of OP No.1 vide Letter of Intent dated 25.08.2020 issued by OP No.1, a copy of which is Annexure OP-3/1. It was stated that the vehicle in question i.e Jeep Grand Chirokee was sold by OP No.2 to the complainant on 14.09.2018 vide invoice Annexure C-1, so it is clear that the answering OP was not involved in the said transaction and the entire profit/margin was consumed by OP No.2 by selling the vehicle in question to the complainant and due to this reason, if there was any deficiency in service or in the vehicle, the same could be attributed to OP No.1 & 2 and not the answering OP No.3 as the complainant was not the consumer of the answering OP. It was further stated that the consumer complaint was filed on 03.09.2020 and the dealership was allotted to the answering OP on 25.08.2020 by OP No.1 and it took the premises i.e. Plot no. 171, Indl. Area, Ph-1, Chandigarh on lease from the landlord vide lease deed dated 10.08.2020 and entered into possession vide Annexure OP-3/2. It was further stated that as per complaint, the complainant had left her vehicle with OP No.2 on 13.11.2019 and OP No.1 had requested the complainant to take her vehicle back vide e-mail dated 19.08.2020 as OP No.2 was closing its operations by 23.10.2020. It was pleaded that when the answering OP came into possession of the dealership, it requested OP No. 2 to get the vehicle in question either delivered to the complainant or it shall be removed from the dealership, to which OP No. 2 requested the answering OP to let the vehicle remain parked in the dealership till the same is picked by the complainant as complainant had filed a consumer complaint and only as a goodwill gesture, the answering OP allowed OP No.2 to let the vehicle remain parked at the dealership. It was also pleaded that OPs No. 1 & 2 were estopped from transferring their negligence and responsibility on the answering OP. It was further pleaded that answering OP No.3 had purchased only the unsold stock of OP No.2 and it was not responsible for any manufacturing defect or any other defect in the vehicles earlier sold by OP No.2. It was further stated that no express or implied or written or verbal agreement has been executed between OP No.2 and answering OP NO.3 that the OP No.3 shall be responsible for any ongoing litigation against OP No.2 or any liability of OP No.2 before the dealership of OP No.1 was allotted to it. The other allegations were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint against OP No.3
6. On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record by the parties, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the complaint of the Complainant, as noted in the opening para of this order.
7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, Opposite Parties filed their respective appeals bearing No.275 of 2023 by KAS cars Pvt. Ltd. and Appeal No.296/23 by FCA India Automobiles Private Limited for setting aside the impugned order whereas Appeal No.313 of 2023 has been filed by the complainant for award of interest on the awarded amount @ 18% p.a. from the date of sale of vehicle till realization and enhancement of compensation etc.
8. We have heard Counsel for the parties , and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.
9. It is case of the appellant/KAS Cars Pvt. Ltd. that the Ld. District Commission wrongly held that appellant and respondent No.2- FCA India Automobiles Private Limited are jointly liable to refund the costs of the vehicle in question to the complainant, on account of manufacturing defect in the said vehicle whereas it is well settled law that a dealer cannot be held liable for a defective product with manufacturing defect, and only the manufacturer is liable for a manufacturing defect. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the dealer is not involved in the manufacturing process of the vehicle and the role and responsibility of a dealer is to market and sell the product being supplied by the manufacturer. Further the dealer is responsible for providing after sale service and it is not the case of the complainant that the appellant was deficient in providing after sale services to the complainant, rather the complainant from the very inception has been alleging that the vehicle suffers from a manufacturing defect. It is further contended that according to Clause 9.3(1) of the Agreement dated 18.12.2017 between the appellant/dealer and respondent No.2/manufacturer, the dealer cannot be held liable for any or all Indemnifiable costs relating to a product liability claim or lawsuit, determined by a Court of Competent jurisdiction after trial and exhaustion of all appeals. It is further contended that no cogent reasons have been given by the Ld. District Commission for disregarding the opinion given by the Report of Flying doctor/technician. In case there were two contradictory expert opinions, the Ld. District Commission ought to have appointed a third expert in order to settle the controversy at hand whereas while placing reliance on the expert opinion of Punjab Engineering College dated 10.10.2022, the Ld. Lower Commission determined that the vehicle in question was suffering from manufacturing defect.
10. It is case of the manufacturer of the car- FCA India Automobiles Private Limited that the Ld. Lower Commission fell in error in establishing that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle based on the concocted report dated 10.10.2022 which was prepared without technically and minutely assessing the vehicle in the manner as required to conclude that the vehicle in question has inherent defect. The engineers/technicians of the appellant and the dealer had examined the subject vehicle wherein no manufacturing defect was observed. It is further contended that the vehicle in question would not have covered such kilometers if there were any such issues in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant and the said issues had arisen due to rat bites and modification done in the vehicle by the complainant. It is further contended that the Ld. Lower Commission was not justified in awarding refund of the value of the vehicle, as claimed by the complainant when no defects, as alleged, were observed.
11. It is case of the appellant/complainant that while purchasing the vehicle in question the amount of more than Rs.57.00 Lakhs was got financed from the HDFC Bank and the complainant has been paying monthly installments regularly but the complainant could not utilize the vehicle despite spending huge amount more than Rs.61.00 Lakhs due to sale of defective vehicle by the opposite parties. It is prayed in the appeal that interest @ 18% p.a. be granted on the awarded amount from the date of sale of the vehicle till realization of the amount besides compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs for harassment and mental agony and costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.
12. The Ld. Lower Commission on the basis of report/expert opinion given by the Expert Committee of the Punjab Engineering College (now deemed university) received vide memo No.PEC/MED/2824 dated 10.10.2022 came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect. The said report/expert opinion reads as under ;
“In Reference to Memo no. PEC/MED/2692-2695 dated 21.09.2022 on the subject cited above the vehicle in question was brought before the committee for inspection on 06.10.2022 at 10.30 AM in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the Institute by Sh. Sushil Thakur (Jeep-ASM), Sh. Nawin Surya VM (Jeep-TS), Sh. Ravi Kumar (WSL-CHD), and Sh. Harman Singh (WSL-CHD), Mrs. Inderjit Kaur (Complainant), was present during the inspection and test drive.
The vehicle having registration no. CH01BU0025, Engine No. M*HC722351, Chassis No. 1C4RJFFM5HC722351*BG was presented for inspection. The vehicle in question was brought in towed condition and inspected visually.
After going through the material available on record and visual inspection, the committee is of the opinion that the vehicle in question is having the problems since the purchase of the vehicle. The service provider was not able to rectify it timely and completely. So the same may be attributed to a manufacturing defect.”
13. The manufacturer of the car- FCA India Automobiles Private Limited questioned the report of the expert committee as the inspection carried out by the technical committee was in a very casual manner wherein no technical tools and/or overall detailed inspection was carried out by the expert committee. Only visual inspection was carried out of the vehicle based on which an opinion was given that the vehicle may be attributed to manufacturing defect whereas the issues arising in the vehicle in question were running issues and not the manufacturing defect. The issues arising in the vehicle were occurring due to fitment of non-genuine accessory i.e. GPRS done by the complainant which was affecting the performance of the subject vehicle. Further when the vehicle was towed to the workshop as well as for inspection by the expert committee, it was having intermittent starting problem due to rat bite.
14. The Ld. Lower Commission considered the objections filed by the manufacturer as well dealer of the car to the expert committee report and found not tenable as the same were not supported by any expert opinion of any other government organization/institute of statutory body at par or above the Punjab Engineering Collected (deemed university), Chandigarh. Further it was also observed by the Ld. District Commission that the manufacture/dealer of the car failed to explain & justify that when the subject vehicle was ready for delivery since 4.1.2020 and that the vehicle was stated to be completely roadworthy, then why it was needed to tow to the Punjab Engineering College (Deemed University), Chandigarh for inspection & expert opinion. It was rightly observed that when the vehicle was roadworthy and ready for delivery, then why it was not driven instead of towing, for inspection by Punjab Engineering College , Chandigarh, which itself proved that the vehicle was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, as a result it could not be made roadworthy by the dealer as well as manufacturer of the car. The sudden stoppage of vehicle in question in the mid of road entailed danger of being hit or run-over by other vehicle coming from behind and could also prove fatal in case of over-speed of other vehicle. The complainant had spent a huge amount of Rs.61,61,000/- (Sixty One Lakh & Sixty One Thousand) in Sept., 2018 to buy the Car in question of such a popular brand name – Jeep Grand Cherokee, but instead of enjoying the vehicle, she has been made to firstly struggle with the OPs for rectifying the defects in the vehicle and then fighting litigation against them till date. The frequent breaking-down of the Car in question just within first year of its purchase and covering only 12000 kms., was totally contrary to the reputation of the OP Car Company and their claims about its unmatched quality and performance. The Ld. Lower Commission rightly observed that even if the major parts of the car were being replaced with new ones, the anxiety and uncertainly about the efficiency & quality of the vehicle always remains in the mind of the customer/complainant. Further the act & conduct of the manufacturer and the dealer in raising one & another plea, instead of clearly admitting the manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle, which was repaired 5 times in first year of its purchase and towed to Expert Committee for inspection, is nothing more than adding insult to injury of complainant and amounts to shunning away from the responsibility with regard to the product that is helping this company making huge profits, which has enabled it to expand worldwide. Therefore, it was rightly observed by the Ld. District Commission that the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OPs No.1 & 2 was clearly established.
15. No doubt,in M/s Medical Eleborate Concept Private Ltd. Vs M/s Ford India Private Ltd. CC No.536 of 2018, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated 30.11.2018 while allowing the complaint and ordering replacement of the engine of the car held the manufacturer liable and dismissed the complaint against the dealer of the car by observing that dealer is not liable for any manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle. The manufacturer of the car- M/s Ford India Private Ltd. went in appeal before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission but FA/169/2019 was dismissed in default for lack of prosecution vide order dated 17.08.2022. However, Ford India Private Ltd. then preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 5.7.2023 for closing the controversy disposed of the appeal titled as Ford India Private Limited Vs Medical Eleborate Concept Private Limited and others (2023 SCC online SC 1099) directing the appellant-manufacturer to pay the amount to the complainant and on receipt of the amount the complainant was directed to hand over the vehicle to the manufacturer. However, in the present case the car in question was a Demo car with manufacturing date as November,2016 whereas it was sold on 14.9.2018 when it had run 960 Kms. The entire sale consideration amount was received by the appellant from respondent No.1/complainant directly and independently, as such the appellant cannot be exonerated from its liability as fastened by the Ld. District Commission.
16. The Learned Lower Commission while allowing the complaint rightly directed to refund the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.61,61,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which interest @ 6% was imposed . The Ld. Lower Commission rightly awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment besides costs of Rs.15,000/-. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the amount awarded by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite just, reasonable and in consonance with the sufferance undergone by the complainant. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Lower Commission.
17. In view of the above discussion, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Consequently all the appeals are dismissed, and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.
18. All the pending applications in both the appeal also stand disposed off accordingly
19. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
