JUSTICE J. M.MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      This order shall decide above said two revision petitions, which are filed by Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd./opposite party No.1/manufacturer and HRBM Automobiles Pvt. Ltd./opposite party No. 2/dealer against the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the State Commission in favour of Shri Iqbaljit Singh Punia, the complainant.

2.      The complainant purchased one Nissan Terrano XL (O) Car for a consideration of Rs.11,02,563/-.  The car started giving serious problems like breaking down suddenly in the middle of the road within one month from the date of the purchase.  Secondly, electronic system of the car stopped working in between on the ways.  The complainant approached OP 2, the authorized dealer at Patiala Road, Sangrur but it paid no heed to the complaints made by the complainant.  He made an attempt to put off the matter by stating that it was routine matter only.

3.      On 14.4.2014, the car of the complainant again broke down in the middle of the road in the main market of Sangrur and the smoke was coming out from the bonnet of the car.  The complainant was compelled to leave the car to save his own life.  He again met OP 2 and he was assured that engineers of OPs would lift the car.  A job card was issued showing that the car had broken down and it was emitting smoke.  After lapse of 3-4 days, no intimation was given to the complainant regarding the rectification of the above said defects.

4.      After a gap of two months, on 17.6.2014, the said car again started giving some problem in its working and stopped working effectively at Kola Park Area Sangrur.  The electronic system of the car broke down and engine of the car again stopped working suddenly giving same problem.  It started emitting smoke from the bonnet of the car suddenly.  The complainant removed himself from the car to save his life.  On information, OP 2 and engineers alongwith some persons towed the car to service station.  The complainant was assured that defects in the car would be rectified.

5.      After one month from the previous break down again the same defects cropped up on 17.06.2014 and the car stopped working effectively.  Again, OP 2 towed the car to service station but no job card was issued to the complainant.  The said car is in possession of OP 2 at the service station since 16.7.2014, since when it had broken down.  The OP 2 put off the matter by making lame excuses that engineers of the company would examine the car.  According to the complainant, the car broke down completely on 14.4.2014, 17.6.2014 and on 16.7.2014 but the defects could not be rectified.

6.      Ultimately, the present complaint was filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to pay costs of the vehicle alongwith compensation in the sum of Rs. 5 lakh for causing mental torture, inconvenience and harassment by the OPs.

7.      Both the OPs denied all these allegations.  OP 1 contended that the relationship between OP 1 and OP 2 is on the basis of principle to principle basis and OP 1 would not be liable for the acts of OP 2.  It was admitted that vehicle was sent to OP 2, where its part were changed under the warranty, free of costs.  According to OP 2, the car was standing in the parking area of OP 2 but the complainant failed to take the delivery of the car and there could be further damage to the car in case it was not put in motion.  Again, OP 2 is entitled to get parking charges @ 200/- per day w.e.f. 28.8.2014.  It was admitted that the vehicle was received in defective condition and after checking it was found that there was problem in self of the car and self was changed.  It was also admitted that on 17.6.2014, the vehicle was again received with the same complaint and self of the vehicle was again replaced free of costs.  It was also admitted that on 17.7.2014, the vehicle was again received in defective condition and engineer of OP 2 found that there was problem in the ignition of the car, which caused the problem.  It is denied that there was manufacturing defect.

8.      The District Forum vide its order dated 5.3.2015 dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission accepted the appeal and directed the OPs to pay the price of the car in the sum of Rs.11,02,563/-.  It also awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and litigation charges in the sum of Rs.20,000/-

9.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10.    It is, thus, clear that the complainant received a defective car and put his life in danger time and again.  The self was changed time and again.  The ignition was also not working well.  All these facts and circumstances clearly go to show that these defects border the manufacturing defect as such.  The complainant could not have faced all these problems, had the vehicle been cent percent flawless.  It is also surprising to note that a new car had to be towed towards the service station time and again.  It must have caused mental torture, harassment, inconvenience to the complainant and instead of giving comfort, the car had started giving discomfort to the complainant.  All these things are admitted.

11.    However, the car cannot be replaced nor its value can be refunded.  Learned counsel for the complainant has also cited an authority reported in C. N. Anantharam vs. M/s Fiat India Ltd. & Ors., SLP No. 21178-21180 of 2009, decided on 24.11.2010.  Its facts are wee bit different.

12.    Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, we hereby order that the car be not replaced but we direct the OPs 1 and 2 to rectify the car, make it roadworthy and give fresh warranty for a period of two years.  The MD of OP 1 and owner of service station will give a joint certificate that the car is roadworthy and they will also replace the tyre and battery, if necessary.  The vehicle be handed over to the complainant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  We also impose costs in the sum of Rs. 3 lakh for the mental torture, harassment, inconvenience caused to the complainant.  The same be also paid within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order otherwise it will carry interest @ 12% per annum till the said amount is paid.   The complainant is also entitled to litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh, which be paid after the expiry of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13.    In view of the above, both the revision petitions are disposed of and the order passed by the State Commission stands modified.