LexJOSE PHILIP MAMPILLIL versus M/S. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JOSE PHILIP MAMP!LLIL
A
v.
M/S. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND ANR.
JANUARY 27, 2004
[S.N. VAR!A VA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]
B
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Defect in newly purchased car-At the
time of delivery-Complaint with District Consumer Forum-Commissioner
appointed by Forum found large number of defects-Direction by District C
F arum to repair the car ft"ee of cost and replacement of engine-State Consumer
Forum directed the repair ft"ee of cost, while refused replacement of engine-
Revision before National Commission dismissed-On appeal, held: Since defects
proved to be at the time of delivery, consumer entitled to get the car repaired
ft"om the mechanic of his choice, payment whereof to be made by opposite
party.
D
Appellant placed order for purchase of a car, manufactured by 1st
respondent-the manufacturer, through 2nd respondent-dealer of 1st
respondent. At the time of delivery there was defect in the paint and in
the piston rings of the engine. Despite the car being sent repeatedly for
repair, the defects were not cured. Respondent No.2 had acknowledged
the defects.
Appellant filed complaint before District Consu.mer Dispute
Redressal Forum claiming direction to respondents to replace the car with
E
a new defectless car or to refund total value with 24% interest thereon. F
District Forum appointed Commissioner who after inspection found large
number of defects in the car. Relying on the report of the Commissioner,
the Forum directed repair of the car free of cost and replacement of the
engine. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum held that there was no
need to replace the engine, but directed repair of the car free of cost.
Revision before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was G
summarily dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From the material on record, it is clear that the car was
IÂŪS
H
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] I S.C.R.
A defective at the time of delivery. There is no doubt that there were defects
in the paint and that the piston rings of the engine had gone. It cannot be
said that the piston rings got spoiled after the delivery was taken. The
agent of the 1st Respondent, i.e. 2nd respondent, had acknowledged that
the piston rings were defective. They would not have so acknowledged
B unles5 it was a defect at the time of the delivery. Had this defect occurred
by virtue of the Appellant's misusing the car, 2nd Respondent would never
have accepted responsibility for repair of the piston rings.
I 1097-H; 1098-A, BJ
2. It is shameful that a defective car was sought to be sold as a brand
C new car. It is further regrettable that, instead of acknowledging the defects,
the 1st Respondent chose to deny liability and has contested this matter.
For this failure in service the Appellant is entitled to get the car repaired
from any reputed garage or mechanic, at Kottayam, of his choice. The
repair work will then be done and the cost thereof will be paid by the
Respondents. The liability to pay the repair cost will be joint and several
D of both the Respondents. It will not be open to the Respondents to dispute
the nature of the work or repairs to be carried out. (1098-E-FI
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3611 of
2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .12.2000 of NCDRC, New Delhi
in R.P.No. 888/98.
Appellant-in-person.
F
Siddharth Dave, Senthil Jagadeesan, V. Ramasubramanian, Ramesh
Singh, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Vanita Bhargava and Ms. Nina Gupta for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
S.N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal has been filed by a party in person,
against the Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
dated 7 December, 2000
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
H
The Appellant had placed an order for purchase of a Premier 1.38
J.P. MAMPILLIL v. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. {VARIAVA, J.)
J 097
Diesel Car manufactured by the I st Respondent. The full price was paid by A
the Appellant. The 2nd Respondent was the Dealer of the I st Respondent at
Kottayam. When the Appellant went to take delivery of tht; O{lf ho found
defects in the paint of the car. He therefore complained to 2nd Respondent.
2nd Respondent promised to rectify the defects \\nd called him again after
some days. The Appellant went after some days. He found that the defects
had not been cured. Therefore, he was not willing to take delivery of the car. BExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.