LexC.N. ANANTHARAM versus M/S. FIAT INDIA LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 619 C.N. ANANTHARAM v. MIS. FIAT INDIA LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.21178-21180. of 2009) NOVEMBER 24, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Deficiency in service A B - Purchaser of diesel vehicle complained to the dealer about defect in the performance of the vehicle and in its engine - c . . He alleged that the diesel vehicle made rattling noise - Dealer replaced the engine and few other parts - Purchaser insisted on replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle - Filed complaint before Consumer Forum seeking replacement of vehicle and in the alternative refund of the D purchase price along with expenses - Dissatisfied with the orders of District Forum and State Commission, the purchaser approached National Commission - National Commission directed the dealer and the manufacturer to remove the defect and deliver it to the purchaser after certification of an independent technical expert that the vehicle was free from any defect - Held: An engine operating on diesel makes a rattling noise which does not occur in petrol driven engines and in view of that there was really no manufacturing defect E F in the vehicle as complained of by the purchaser - In such circumstances, the order passed by the National Commission was not unreasonable - Apart from the complaint relating to noise from the engine and the gear box, there was no other major defect which made the vehicle incapable of operation, particularly when the engine was replaced with a new one - Directions given by the National Commission upheld with G further direction that if the expert opines that the vehicle has inherent manufacturing defects, the purchaser would be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle and the lifetime 619 H 620 SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL) S.C.R A tax and EM/ along with in:2rest @ 12% p.a. and costs. The complainant-p~!titioner purchased a diesel vehicle from a dealer, the second respondent and got it registered in his name. After the registration, he took the vehicle on a drive and found certain defects in the 8 VEihicle particularly in the engine. On the same day, he left the vehicle with the dealer for removing the defects. The engine and few other parts were replaced. The petitioner was still not satisfied with the performance of the vehicle and informed the dealer that the vehicle had inherent C defects which could not be repaired and insisted on replacement of vehicle with a new one or for refund of purchase price together with the expenses incurred by him in trying to rectify the defects in the vehicle. On not receiving any response, the petitioner filed a complaint D before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the first and second respondents to refund the claimed amount, together with interest @ 12% P.A. and a sum of Rs.5000 towards cost of legal proceedings. The State Commission modified the order E of the District Forum and directed the first and second respondents to replace the vehicle with a brand new one and on failure to do so to refund the purchase price of the vehicle along with road tax and the monthly instalments paid by the petitioner along with the interest F @ 12% P.A. from the date of order. Aggrieved, the respondents filed revision before the National Commission. The National Commission held that the petitioner could not prove any manufacturing defect, but directed the dealer and the manufacturer to remove the G defects, if any, in the vehicle and make it roadworthy, if necessary by reconditioning the vehicle and deliver it to the petitioner in the presence of an independent technical expert who would certify that the vehicle was free from any defect and the same would be final for all purposes. H C.N. ANANTHARAM v. M/S. FIAT INDIA LTD. AND 621 ORS. ETC. ETC. The petitioner filed the instant special leave petitions ~ challenging the order of the National Commission. Disposing of the special leave petitions, the Court HELD: 1. The question which emerged after B• considering the submissions made on behalf of I respective parties was whether the manufacturing company and by extension the dealer/agent was under anv compulsion to replace the vehicle itself when the engine of the vehicle from which certain noises were allegedly emanating had been replaced. It was explained . C that an engin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.