JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant purchased a Ford Icon car from Cauvery Motors Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.2 in this petition, on 10.10.2002. When the car had run for 3147 km, he noticed uneven tire wearing and started complaining. The defect, however, persisted despite the tyres having been replaced. Alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the price which he paid for the vehicle alongwith compensation etc.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which interalia stated in its reply that their technical team had not found any difference in the alignment readings when they checked the vehicle. It was claimed that the uneven swearing of the tyres  in the vehicle was on account of the road on which the complainant used to drive the vehicle.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 21.5.2013 directed the opposite parties in the complaint to refund the price of the vehicle alongwith interest  and cost of litigation.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner and respondent No.2 preferred a joint appeal before the concerned State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 17.7.2018, the State Commission directed as under:-

“The complaint is partly allowed by holding that OPNo.3 is liable to refund entire value of the vehicle paid by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization for having supplied the defective vehicle by taking back ZXI Ford Icon car bearing Registration No. KA 18 M 5965 together with cost of Rs.10,000/- within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.”

          Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner company is before this Commission.

5.      A Court Commissioner was appointed by the District Forum to inspect the vehicle in question. The Court Commissioner was a mechanical engineer though he had also studying automobile engineering as a part of his course. He, on inspecting the vehicle reported as under:-

“D. Defective Part:

The Body Shell and the Chassis are of integrated one in Passenger Cars, which cannot be separated. The subject car was put on a Zig for test at Car-O-Liner (Ex. 34) and the report says that the Parts/ portions at No. 8 and  11 positions in the Picture have additional modifications which are not in accordance with the Design Specifications of this Model, i.e., Icon ZXI, and showing extra heights. We are surprised to note that, how this Body Shell was ‘Passed Out’ at the “QUALITY CONTROL CHECK” of the manufacturers at Chengalpattu Unit. This defective, non-standard for Icon ZXI model, Body Chassis Part is passed onto Assembly Section -  Hence, the subject car resulting in uneven wear of Tyres.

It may, however, noted here that in spite of all the exhaustive exercises / repairs/ inspections / replacements of tyres twice/ applying ‘trial & error’ methods, the manufacturers / dealers / expert technical staff of manufacturers, could not bring the condition of the Car to the normal condition or could not avoid the ‘unequal wear’ of the tyres.”

6.      In my opinion considering the report of the Court Commissioner the concurrent view taken by both the Fora below with respect to the defect in the vehicle does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

7.      Coming to the quantum of compensation, the State Commission noticed that the vehicle had already been used for 55,000 km. The vehicle was purchased in 2002. It could initially be used only for 15 years though the registration could be renewed for another term of five years. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including (i) the usage of the vehicle (ii) the duration of the vehicle in the possession of the complainant and (iii) the harassment and agony suffered by the complainant on account of his driving a defective vehicle and visiting workshop a number of times in an effort to get the defect removed, the petitioner company should refund 50% of the price paid by the complainant for purchase of the vehicle without any interest or compensation provided that the payment is made within six weeks from today. He shall also be entitled to retain the defective vehicle. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.