LexTATA MOTORS LTD. versus ANTONIO PAULO VAZ AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 625 [2021] 1 S.C.R. 625 625 TATA MOTORS LTD. v. ANTONIO PAULO VAZ AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 574 of 2021) FEBRUARY 18, 2021 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, HEMANT GUPTA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] Consumer Protection: Deficiency in service – Purchase of car by complainant from the dealer – Refused to take delivery of the car as it was an old and used one (2009 make) – Dealer refused to deliver new car (2011 make) – Consumer complaint – The manufacturer contested the complaint taking the plea that it cannot be held liable for the act of dealer as the relationship between the dealer and the manufacturer was that of principal to principal and not that of agent and principal – Dealer never appeared – District forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of dealer as well as manufacturer and they were jointly and severally liable to replace the car with a new model or to refund the entire amount with interest @10% from the date of delivery – State Consumer Commission as well as National Consumer Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum – Appeal to Supreme Court by the manufacturer – Held: There was absolute dearth of pleadings by the complainant with regard to manufacturer’s role or its having special knowledge regarding dealer’s role in representing the car as new and selling an old used car – The failure of the complainant to plead or prove the manufacturer’s liability could not have been improved upon through inferential findings – Having regard to the nature of dealer’s relationship with the manufacturer, the dealer’s omissions and acts could not have resulted in manufacturer’s liability – Therefore, the findings of the fora below are set aside – Appeal allowed. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra (2006) 4 SCC 644 : [2006] 3 SCR 603; Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council (1994) 1 SCC 397; Vivek Automobiles Ltd. v. Indian Inc. (2009) 17 SCC 657; Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection A B C D E F G H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. Council, Kerala (1994) 1 SCC 397; General Motors (I) (P) Ltd. v. Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat (2015) 1 SCC 429 : [2014] 11 SCR 16 – relied on. Jos Philip Mampillil v. Premier Automobiles Limited and Anr. (2004) 2 SCC 278 : [2004] 1 SCR 1095 – distinguished. Case Law Reference [2006] 3 SCR 603 relied on para 9 (1994) 1 SCC 397 relied on para 9 [2004] 1 SCR 1095 distinguished para 15 (2009) 17 SCC 657 relied on para 18 (1994) 1 SCC 397 relied on para 24 [2014] 11 SCR 16 relied on para 25 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 574 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2020 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.1809 of 2014. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Debmalya Banerjee, Ms. Seema Sundd, Kartik Bhatnagar, Rohan Sharma, A.S. Aman, Ujjwal Singh, Ritu Raj, Vardaan Wanchoo, Aditya Sidhra, Ms. Astha Prasad, M/s. Karanjawala & Co., Advs for the Appellant. Ninand Laud, Karan Mathur, Ms. Ananyaa Mazumdar, Ivo D’Costa, Ms. Ila Sheel, Advs. for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was passed by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. This special leave petition was heard finally; Leave granted, it impugns an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 (hereafter “Commission”) which affirmed the order of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter “State Commission”). 1 Dated 09 January, 2020 in Revision Petition No. 1809 of 2014 A B C D E F G H 627 2. The relevant facts are that that the first respondent, Antonio Paulo Vaz (hereafter “Vaz”) bought a car after paying the agreed total consideration price in 2011 to the second respondent, Vistar Goa (P) Ltd, a dealer in cars (hereafter “the dealer”). At the time of purchase, Vaz availed bank credit. A 2009 model car which had run 622 kilometres was sold to him in place of a new car of 2011 make. Vaz, therefore, requested for refund of the price paid or replacement of the car with one of 2011. The price was however not refunded; neither was the car replaced. Vaz refused to take delivery of the 2009 model car. He attempted a resolution of his concern and thereafter, caused a legal notice to be issued to the dealer, as well as the appellant. Upon his grievance remaining unaddressed, he preferred a complaint before the Goa District Consumer Redressal Forum (hereafter “the district forum”). 3. The district forum heard the appellant, which was represented, and Vaz. Despite service of notice (of the com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.