National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ashok Auto Sales Limited vs Subhashis Jain & Anr. on 9 August, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1732 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 07/09/2022 in Appeal No. A/847/2016 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. ASHOK AUTO SALES LIMITED AGRA KANPUR ROAD NOONIHAI AGRA UTTAR PRADESH AGRA UTTAR PRADESH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUBHASHIS JAIN & ANR. SON OF AJAY KUMAR JAIN, RESIDENCE OF- SAHU VILLA, FIROZABAD ROAD, TUNDLA DISTRICT, FIROZABAD. FIROZABAD UTTAR PRADESH 2. M/S FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD. 40 B. RANJAN GAON, MIDC INDUSTRIAL AREA RANJAN GAON, TALUKA SIRUR, DISTRICT PUNE. PUNE MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. SUMEET LAL, ADVOCATE MR. SIDHANT KAPOOR, ADVOCATE MS. SHIREEN KAPUR, ADVOCATE Dated : 09 August 2023 ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Sumeet Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
2. Above revision has been filed against the order of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, dated 07.09.2022, passed in First Appeal No.847 of 2016 & First Appeal No.1813 of 2016 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Agra, dated 26.03.2016 passed in CC/85/2012), whereby District Forum allowed the complaint with cost of Rs.10000/- and directed the petitioner and respondent-2 to pay Rs.648200/- with interest @8% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment and State Commission dismissed the appeals.
3. Subhashis Jain (respondent-1) filed CC/85/2012 for directing the petitioner and respondent-2 to (i) replace the earlier car with new car or in alternative pay a sum of Rs.855523/- with interest @8% per annum; (ii) pay Rs.110000/- as compensation; and (iii) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the fact of the case. The complainant stated that he had purchased Fiat Car/Linea D E Emersion, bearing Chassis No.11031709014637 from M/s. Ashoka Auto Sales, on 22.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.810523/-. After travelling about 10 kilometres from the showroom, the said car stopped due to engine failure and was towed to showroom of M/s. Ashoka Auto Sales, who after arguments gave another car of model BNZ Engine No.62665 model, Chassis No.1103170909014914, whose Registration number was UP 83 R 5051, for which expenses of Rs.50000/- was incurred by the complainant. The complainant used the said vehicle for domestic purpose and used to get its service done at authorised service centre of the company on completion of prescribed kilometres time to time. AC of the car was not cooling properly and pick-up and average of the car was bad and below the standard of the company. About completion of the period of second servicing, the engine broke down, then the complaint took the car at service centre where it was rectified. During warrantee period, the engine broke down several times and the parts of the engine such as intercooler leaning, AC, cloth filtering element, DSCL synthetic pepi, turbo compressor, kit wiring etc. were damaged and replaced. Ultimately engine was replaced. Due to manufacturing defect, engine of said car broke down repeatedly and the complainant had to take the car to service centre almost in every month. Last time, the car was taken on service centre on 10.12.2011, who asked the complainant after examination that every part of the car (except body) would be changed. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.
4. The petitioner filed its written reply and contested the complaint. The petitioner stated that initially the complainant had chosen red colour but later on, he changed his mind and chosen black colour and asked to exchange the car showing minor scratch. For gratifying the duty of a good service claimed by the company, opposite party-2 exchanged Fiat Car/Linea D E Emersion. It is incorrect to say that the engine of the car was seized. The complainant did not make any complaint about any defect in the car till the second free service. After driving the vehicle for 16091 kms, the complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre on 10.12.2011. After inspection, it was found that the complainant was using adulterated diesel and had not followed the norms of driving due to which the engine was seized. The engine was replaced as it was within warrantee period. Delay in replacement of the engine occurred as during this period, Fiat Group and Tata Motors entered into Joint Venture and the distribution and service of Fiat branded cars in India had been managed by Tata Motors. Spare parts of Fiat branded car in India can only be acquired through Tata Motors. Some time was taken in bringing the engine from Fiat Depot to the service centre. After replacement of new engine, opposite party-2 informed the complainant through letter dated 02.06.2012 to take back his vehicle, in which new engine was installed. The compensation as claimed has no basis. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.
In spite of service of notice, Fiat India Automobiles Limited did not contest the complaint and the case was proceeded exparte against it.
5. District Forum, by judgment dated 26.03.2016, found that from Job Card, it is proved that on 12.08.2011, on the complaint of engine heating, low average, low pick-up,, heat exchangers, turbo compressor and kit bearing were changed. Again on the complaint of engine heating, engine oil was changed on 01.11.2011. On 10.11.2011, again complaint was made for black smoke, low pick-up, low average, starting problem and AC cooling. On 10.12.2011, the vehicle was tow by opposite party-2 from house of the complainant and engine was changed. The car suffered from manufacturing defect from very beginning. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for it. On these finding the complaint was allowed.
6. The petitioner filed First Appeal No.847 of 2016 and Fiat India Automobiles Limited filed First Appeal No.1813 of 2016, from the order of District Forum. State Commission, by its judgment dated 07.09.2022, upheld the findings of District Forum and dismissed the appeals. Hence this revision has been filed by the dealer.
7. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The vehicle was sold on 22.03.2010. District Forum found that from Job Card, it is proved that on 12.08.2011, on the complaint of engine heating, low average, low pick-up, heat exchangers, turbo compressor and kit bearing were changed. Again on the complaint of engine heating, engine oil was changed on 01.11.2011. On 10.11.2011, again complaint was made for black smoke, low pick-up, low average, starting problem and AC cooling. On 10.12.2011, the vehicle was tow by opposite party-2 from house of the complainant and engine was changed. The petitioner took plea that the complainant was using adulterated diesel and had not followed the norms of driving due to which the engine was seized. But the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to prove these allegations. On the other hand heat exchangers, turbo compressor and kit bearing were changed on 12.08.2011. As such finding of fact recorded by District Forum that the vehicle suffered from inherent defect does not suffer from any illegality.
8. So far as liability of the petitioner is concerned, it also depends upon nature of agency. Supreme Court in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Antonio Paul Vaz, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 135, held that if dealership was on Principal to Principal basis, then dealer would be liable. The petitioner relied has upon judgments of Supreme Court in Hindustan Motors Limited Vs. N. Siva Kumar, (2000) 10 SCC 654 and Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra, (2006) 4 SCC 644, for the proposition that for manufacturing defects, the manufacturer will be liable. But in written reply or in revision, the petitioner has not stated that its relation with manufacturer was on agent and principal basis as such we do not propose to interfere with orders of Fora below.
.O R D E R In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is dismissed.
.........................J A. P. SAHI PRESIDENT ..................................................J RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA MEMBER