National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. vs Rohit Jain & Anr. on 31 March, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 446 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 19/09/2012 in Appeal No. 57/2010 & 02/2010 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. M/S. HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD. PLOT NO-A-1 SECTOR-40-41, SURAJPUR KASANA ROAD, GREATER NOIDA,DEV AREA GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR U.P - 201306 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ROHIT JAIN & ANR. 1112, ANTRIKSH BHAWAN, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001 2. M/S. SAKET MOTORS PVT. LTD., AUTHORISED DEALER, PLOT NO-71, BLOCK B-2, MOHAN CORPORATION INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BADARPUR , MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 044 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Survana Kashyap and Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. B.B. Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Maneesh Goyal Advocate for R-2 Dated : 31 Mar 2016 ORDER Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 being aggrieved by impugned order dated 19.9.2012 passed by State Commission, Delhi (for short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No.2 and 57 of 2010 has filed present revision under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act').
2. Brief facts are, that on 1.12.02 Respondent No.1/Complainant No.1 purchased Honda Accord Car, manufactured by petitioner, from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1- Saket Motor Pvt. Ltd. for consideration of Rs. 14,35,000/-. Petitioner and respondent no.2 gave warranty against the vehicle for any defect, hence the said vehicle is under warranty period. Since, purchase complainant was regularly maintaining the said car properly and getting regular check up and maintenance from the authorized workshop/dealer of the Petitioner, who was previously known as Southend Honda, Delhi and now known as Saket Motor Pvt. Ltd. All of a sudden on 17.12.07, when the said vehicle was parked at Antriksh Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi and when it was started by complainant, it started giving huge black smoke and balloons of black smoke started emanating from the vehicle. It is transpired, that there is some big problem in the engine of the vehicle and it appeared to have collapsed. Complainant contacted respondent no.2 regarding the said condition of the vehicle, who asked him to bring the same at their workshop and only then needful will be done. The car was taken to the workshop of respondent no.2 on 20.12.07. After inspecting the vehicle, respondent no.2 opined, that engine of car was collapsed and it needs overhauling. It was also told to the complainant, that he has to bear the expenditure of about Rs.70-80,000/- for the said overhauling. The vehicle had covered only 67,000 KM and complainant was regularly getting the maintenance and upkeep of the vehicle from respondent no.2. It is well known in the automobile sector, that such costly vehicle never require overhauling before 3 lakh kms. Complainant wrote letter to petitioner on 21.12.07, requesting to replace the said defective car engine of the vehicle. In response petitioner replied on 23.12.07, that needful will be done by their dealer M/s Southend Honda. Thereafter, complainant contacted respondent no.2 as per advise of the petitioner, but respondent no.2 refused to repair.
3. The petitioner and respondent no.2 are under legal obligation to replace the said defective engine. Complainant is incurring huge expenditure of Rs.1,500/- per day on conveyance to hire the private vehicle to meet his daily engagements. Accordingly, complainant sought following reliefs against petitioner and respondent no.2;
"(a) Thereby ordering the respondents for replacement of the said defectively manufactured Engine of the Honda Accord Car 2.3 VTIL MT. having Regn. No.DL-SC-S-0009, Engine No.F23A2 001103, Chassis No. MAKCG57G/2N100416.
(b) Ordering the respondents to pay damages and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. The respondents be further directed to pay the entire expenditure @ Rs.1,500/- per day since 17.12.2007 as the said vehicle is lying idle and of no use.
(c) To pay the cost of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant of this complaint."
4. Petitioner in its written statement has pleaded, that complainant is not a consumer and there is no indulgence of any unfair trade practice on its part. The petitioner admits that car was purchased by the complainant about 5 years ago from respondent no.2. It is stated, that only in case of manufacturing defect, petitioner is required to take care of the same, as per terms of the warranty. In the present case, petitioner has a principal to principal relationship with its dealers and each party is responsible for its own action. Therefore, petitioner cannot be fastened with any liability for the acts of commission or omission of respondent no.2.
5. It is further stated, that complainant despite order dated 17.3.2008 of the District Forum, failed to furnish the vehicle for inspection and repair of the same. The car was purchased on 1.12.02, which apparently goes to show that it is more than 5 years old and out of warranty period. Respondent no.2 after examining the said car had explained to the complainant, that car engine need to be overhauled. Since, the car was out of the warranty period, therefore complainant has to pay the repairs. Further, Production of the subject car has been stopped 5 years ago and no such engine is in stock and the entire engine has to be imported from Japan in part, in case available. The complainant cannot be awarded for his own wrongs and if any financial burden has accrued on him, it is just because of his own indecision and for that petitioner is not liable for the same.
6. Respondent no.2 in its reply has stated, that vehicle was under warranty for a period of one year or 40,000 km, whichever is earlier. Here, the vehicle was purchased in the year 2002, whereas allegations of manufacturing defect have been made in the year 2008. The car engine needed overhauling, after it was examined. The cost of repairs had to be paid by the complainant, but he showed no interest. Further, he did not bring the vehicle for inspection.
7. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short, 'District Forum') vide order dated 16.11.09 has allowed the complaint. It directed the petitioner to refund Rs.14,35,000/- being the cost of the car and to take back the defective vehicle. In addition Rs.1 Lakh as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation was also awarded.
8. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred Appeal No. 02/2010, whereas complainant preferred Appeal No. 57/2010 for enhancement of compensation, before the State Commission, Delhi.
9. The State Commission vide its impugned order, partly allowed both appeals and modified the order of District Forum to the following extent;
"(i) M/s Honda Siel Car India Ltd., OP-2 of the complaint, shall pay Rs.10,76,000/- to the complainant namely Rohit Jain.
(ii) M/s Honda Siel Car India Ltd shall also pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 17.12.07 to the date of the realization on Rs.10,76,000/-
(iii) M/s Honda Siel Car India Ltd. shall also pay compensation of Rs.1 Lac to the complainant Rohit Jain along with Rs.20,000/- as cost of the litigation."
10. Hence, this revision.
11. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for complainant and respondent no.2. We have also gone through the record as well as written submissions of the parties.
12. It is submitted by ld. Senior Counsel for petitioner, that District Forum had passed an order for repair/inspection of the car which was not allowed to be carried out by the complainant. Further, complainant did not allow the petitioner to import the engine on payment of cost. Thus, there has been no deficiency on its part and complainant cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. The complainant did not want the overhauling of the engine. On the other hand, complainant expressed his desire to get the entire engine replaced, which was not available in India and was required to be imported from Japan against payment. Since, complainant was ready to bear the cost of the same, as such District Forum without prejudice to the rights of anyone, directed the complainant on 8.4.2008, to make half payment as guarantee and rest after the import of the engine, provided the new engine is available. The dealer gave an estimate for Rs.7,45,423/-. Despite the order of State Commission also, no amount was deposited by the complainant.
13. Hence, both fora below committed an error in not considering the fact, that the liability of Petitioner being manufacturer, is limited only for the period of warranty. It is well settled law, that liability of manufacturer is limited only during pendency of warranty period, which admittedly was for one year or 40,000 km. whichever is earlier. The replacement of engine assembly is neither governed by any law nor under the contract between the parties. Thus, there has been no deficiency on the part of petitioner. In support, ld. counsel relied upon following judgments;
"i) M/s. Hero Honda Motors Limited Vs. Shri Katakam Mallikarjuna Rao, (Revision Petition No.1804 of 2007 decided on 5.4.2013 by this Commission);
ii) C.N. Anantharam Vs. Fiat India Ltd. and others, (2011) 1 SCC 460;
iii) Dr. K. Kumar Vs. Dr. A.S. Narayan, (Revision Petition No.3140 of 2007 decided on 21.10.2009 by this Commission);
iv) Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Vs. Director General Post Offices, (2011) 13 SCC 220;
v) Ford India Private Ltd., Fortune Ford and another Vs. N. Anil Chandra Gowd and another, II (2014) CPJ 202 (NC) and
vi) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goyal & others, (Revision Petition No. 2309 of 2008 decided on 30.1.2015 passed by this Commission)"
14. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/Dealer has also made somewhat similar submissions in line with that of petitioner's counsel.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant has contended, that revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act, is limited as this Commission is not sitting as a court of appeal. Moreover, there are concurrent findings of facts given by both fora below.
16. It is further submitted, that car in question is a technically advanced sophisticated luxury brand high valued car which was being regularly managed and maintained with no negligence or carelessness on the part of the complainant. Its engine will never require overhauling, just after the car has run for about 67,000 kms. There has been concurrent findings of fact given by both fora, that there is no negligence or carelessness on the part of consumer in maintaining the car. In fact, it is a case of "Res ipsa loquitor".
17. The spare parts even in discontinued models, have to be made available at least for a period of ten years from the date of discontinuation. In the present case, undisputedly the engine of car in question was not available with the petitioner, even within five years of the sale thereof. As per petitioner's own case, engine was not available since April, 2003, though the car was purchased on 1.12.2002. Thus, it is a clear deficiency in services. Though, complainant had requested for replacement of the engine and was willing to bear the necessary expenses thereof, but petitioner always refused for it as it did not keep the packaged engine. Further, petitioner has misrepresented about the quality , fitness and standard of the car which it is required to maintain as per its representation. Thus, petitioner has sold the car by making false and misleading representations concerning the standard, quality grade, use and benefit of the car. Lastly, the car in question is lying idle since January, 2008 at the residential accommodation of the complainant and same has not been removed, despite directions of both fora below. Thus, there is no merit in this revision petition.
18. District Forum vide its order 16.11.2009 held;
" The complainant wrote a letter on 21.12.2007 to OP-2 i.e the manufacturer and requested to replace the defective car engine which has collapsed on barely running 67,000 K.M. In response to his letter the Complainant received a letter dated 23.12.2007 assuring him that needful will be done by their dealer i.e. OP-1 South End Honda now known as Saket Motors Pvt. Ltd. and also expressed their regret for the inconvenience being caused to him. The complainant again contacted OP-1 but of no use. Thereafter, the complainant wrote letter dated 07.01.2008 and 24.01.2008 to OP-2 but did not receive any reply from them. Since the car was lying idle from 17.12.07 which is a very essential means of transport due to which great inconvenience was felt by the Complainant in discharging his day to day engagements and due to non-roadworthiness of the car because the engine had collapsed. The family was also suffering and the Complainant started incurring an expenditure of Rs.1,500/- per day for hiring the private vehicle. being aggrieved by the attitude of the OPs in not replacing the defective engine of the car which had collapsed at such a low millage of 67,000 K.M. As to the objection of the OPs that the Complaint is time barred, Section 24-A (1) of C.P. Act,1986 provides that "the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years form the date on which the cause of action has arisen". In this case the engine of the car went out of order and started emanating smoke on 17.12.07 and the Complainant has filed this complaint of arising of the cause within two years as such the complaint is very well within the limitation person.
As to the objection of the OPs that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint of the Complainant is also not sustainable as Section 11(2) ( c) of C.P. Act, 1986 clearly states that " a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises and in this case the smoke started emanating from the car when the car was parked at Antriksh Bhawan, New Delhi which is well within jurisdiction of the Forum and as such this forum is well competent to adjudicate the complaint of the complainant.
As regards the plea taken by the OPs that the complainant is claiming warranty even after five years whereas warranty has long since expired and the Complainant therefore is not entitled to any relief in respect of the car or the engine which is five year old. The Delhi State Commission in appeal case No.A711/2004 on 19.11.2007 titled as "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Tata Motors & Ors." had very well expressed their views that concept of warranty is limited to the extent of putting the liability of the consumer to pay for the charges for the repairs conducted after warranty period but it does not absolve the manufacturer and the service provider from the liability of having sold defective vehicle and it was to calculate high standard of quality of goods and services, that the Legislature brought the Consumer Protection Act on the statute book by defining the word "defect" in section 2(1) of the Act shows that, "any kind of fault or imperfection or short coming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under contract express or implied or is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.". And Hon'ble State Commission had opined thus, whenever manufacturer of the vehicle offers to sell a brand new vehicle to the consumer, there is an implied contract to the claim of the manufacturer that vehicle being sold by it does not suffer from any will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained.
In another case titled as "Maruti Udyog Vs. Om Sahai Bhatnagar and Anr." III (2007) CPJ 459 (NC) Hon'ble National Commission in this where Maruti 800 car had run only 75,000 K.M. though 8 years old had observed that "at such early engine life the low engine compression is certainly sign of manufacturing defect in the engine and had order for the replacement of the engine.
From the foregoing discussion the plea of the OPs that the car is out of warranty and is five years old and the complainant is not entitled for any replacement of the engine does not hold good.
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and all the above judgments cited and holding the OPs guilty in preceding para for providing deficient services to the Complainant as well as for adopting unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice as well as for causing mental agony, harassment, emotional sufferings, physical discomfort, loss of business, loss of time and incurring extra expenditure.
After when both the parties led evidence and the record produced in support of their respective cases and the proceedings of the case leave no manner of doubt that the vehicle remained more in the workshop of the OP1 then at the residence of the Complainant and use of the same by the Complainant. The number of visits to the workshop and the job sheets point out the various defects which kept occurring in the vehicle. There is nothing to show that the complainant was ever at fault. There was no defect in driving or defect arising out of the same. The car of standard of the Honda Accord should always live upto its reputation and the behavior of the OPs should have been so consumer friendly that Complainant should not have felt the pinch of having a defective car. Every person who purchases a vehicle has enormous sentimental values attached to the same and that is one of the reasons the car like Honda Accord which is costlier than other models of Honda is purchased. If that model also is viewed with period of warranty or its expiry or after how many kilometers of driving the defect in engine arose. Even if any defect is arose it should have been removed when the car was taken to workshop where it was attended to by the engineers who had all the expertise on such engines. The car prove to be more of a nuisance than luxury by the complainant or its family. After keeping in mind all these aspects this forum feels that replacement of the vehicle will be no solution for the reasons that this model has become absolute and the State Commission has also time and again held that the replacement of the vehicle may not be end of litigation as the replaced vehicle may also have same or similar defects."
19. Whereas State Commission in its impugned order observed;
"19. There is no denying the fact that the vehicle was taken to the Service station many time as is clear from paper No.85-102 and paper No.103 goes to show that engine fuel was also changed.
20. It is the settled position of the law that if the vehicle cannot be replaced, the price of the vehicle can be considered for refund. In the case in hand, the appellant in its written statement in para 9 has very candidly and categorically admitted that the Production of the car has been stopped 5 years ago and no such engine is in stock and the entire engine has to be import from Japan in part, in case it is available. In such situation, the cost of the vehicle can be refunded under Consumer Protection Act and District Forum has directed for the refund of the entire cost of Rs.14,35,000/-.
21. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the vehicle was purchased in December 2002 after payment of the aforesaid huge amount to the OP No. 1 and the said vehicle was taken to the service station of the appellant many times but finally on 17.12.2007, the engine collapsed and the vehicle became idle since dated 17.12.2007. This is admitted by the complainant in his letter dated21.12.07, the copy of which is paper No. 104. 22. The net result is that the complainant has used the vehicle from 2002 to Dec. 2007 and thereafter, it was not in use on account of the total collapsed of the engine. During this period, there must be depreciation in the car which has not been considered by the Ld. District Forum in awarding the amount of the price of the vehicle. There are catena of the case of Honble Supreme court and the National Commission that the depreciation of this period should be considered in taking into consideration and fixing the price of the vehicle. In view of this, we consider 25% depreciation for the said period. The total price of the vehicle is Rs. 14,35,000/-. After deducting 25%, the amount comes to Rs. 10,76,000/- for which the complainant is entitled.
23. A feeble attempt has been made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant in assailing the order of the District Forum on the ground that the relief which has not been sought by the complainant has been granted, therefore, the order itself is illegal. We do not agree that contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant in this regard. The material in record goes to show that the complainant has sought the relief the replacement of the defective manufactured engine of the vehicle in question together Rs.5 Lac as compensation and also Rs. 1500 per day from 17.12.07 and the litigation expenses. The District Forum has granted the relief of the refund of the cost of the vehicle which comes to Rs. 14,35,000/-It may stated here that there is an admission of the Appellant, i.e. Honda Siel Car India Ltd. in the written statement that the Production of the car has been stopped 5 years ago and no such engine is in stock and the entire engine has to be import from Japan in part, in case it is available. Obviously, there cannot be any replacement of the car nor the engine on account of the impossibility of the act or the performance. The peculiar situation has arisen, therefore, the District Forum has considered the above relief. "
20. It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under Section 21 of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed;
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."
22. It is an admitted fact, that car in question being manufactured by petitioner was purchased by the complainant on 1.12.2002 and it was a very costly car. It is also not in dispute, that after purchase of the car, complainant has been regularly maintaining the said car properly and getting regular check up and maintenance from the authorized workshop/dealer of the petitioner, that is, respondent no.2. It is also an admitted fact,as per written statement of petitioner, filed in year 2008 that production of the subject car has been stopped 5 years ago (that is, in the year 2003) and no such engine is in stock and the entire engine has to be imported from Japan in part, in case available. Further, petitioner in its written statement has stated, that in the instant case replacement of the engine is not required and same can be repaired by replacing certain parts.
23. As per above defence of the petitioner, it is taking a contradictory stand. On one hand it states; "In the instance case replacement of engine is not required and the same can be repaired by replacing certain parts."
24. On the other hand petitioner's stand is, that "no such engine is in stock and the entire engine has to be imported from Japan."
25. Therefore, in view of the above defence of the petitioner, it is manifestly clear, that engine could be repaired. This goes on to show that, repair of engine was required but petitioner had no stock of the engine or spare parts of the car in question with it, within one year of selling of the car to the complainant. The mere fact, that warranty of car has expired will not make any difference in this case, as petitioner has indulged in unfair trade practice as well as restrictive trade practice by stopping the production of engine of the subject car, within one year after its sale. Therefore, deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, is writ large in this case.
26. However, petitioner has tried to take shelter on the basis of interim order dated 17.3.2008, passed by the District Forum, which directed the complainant, to take its car for inspection and repair, which the complainant did not comply. When petitioner itself has admitted in its written statement, that no such engine is in stock, then where was the need for the complainant to have taken his car for inspection and repair.
27. Now coming to the question of warranty of the car in question, which was for a period of one year or 40,000 kms., whichever is earlier.
28. In this regard with advantage, we quote the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Commission;
"i) Hindustan Motors Ltd. and another Vs. N. Siva Kumar and another, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654, wherein the court observed;
"3.xxxxxxx "M/s. Hindustan Motors who are the appellants before us have stopped manufacturing ambassador NOVA model cars and therefore, the order of the National Commission that a new car be supplied to the respondent cannot be complied with.
4. In this situation, we are left with no alternative except to direct that the order passed by the State Commission for the refund of Rs.1,77,200/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the complaint till actual payment, together with a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony, be complied with as we are fully satisfied, on the facts of the case, that the appellants had sold a defective car to the respondent and the offer of the appellants for repairs including replacement of a new engine block will not be a substitute for a new car which the respondent legally deserves to be supplied. The order of the State Commission for payment of rs.3,000/- towards costs is also maintained."
ii) New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another Vs. Kumar Gaurav and others, II (2014 CPJ 24 (NC),decided by this Commission. In this case, the car met with an accident on 16.5.2011 and was badly damaged. Complainant informed the Insurance Company about the incident and took the car for repairs to OP No.5, who gave an estimate for Rs.7,38,252/- for the repairs, including replacement of body shell of the car. The Insurance Company gave the instructions to the dealer for repairs of the vehicle but, car was not repaired for 7 months due to non-availability of body shell car. Neither the dealer (OP-5), nor the Hyundai Motors India Ltd. (HMIL), the manufacturer (OPs-1 and 2) was able to supply body shell. Therefore, the Complainant sent a legal notice to all the OPs for settlement of his claim, but to no avail. Therefore, Complainant filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh (in short, 'District Forum') against all the OPs for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The District Forum allowed the complaint and appeal against the order of District Forum was also dismissed. In the revision, this Commission observed;
10. The Counsel for OP1 & 2 further argued that, liability of manufacturer of Hyundai cars is limited and extends to warranty obligations alone. As per OP1 & 2's warranty terms and conditions, damages or repairs due to accident, fire, tempering or improper repair, negligence of proper maintenance of the vehicle, use of parts other than Hyundai genuine parts, is not covered under the warranty policy. It is further submitted that, OP has provided, timely and efficient 1st, 2nd, 3rd free services to the Complainant; hence there is no cause for filing the present complaint. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
We are not convinced by the arguments advanced by Counsels for the petitioner/ insurer and the manufacturer. No doubt, the warranty ceases after accident. It means the repairs and replacement parts will not be done, free of cost. Hence, it cannot absolve the manufacturer from non-supply of spare parts, which are necessary for the repairs and to bring the car in original condition. The correspondence/communication clearly establish that the HMIL has expressed their inability to supply body shell of said car. The email is reproduced as follows:
This Commission further observed;
iii) M/s. Sanjay Machinery Tractor Vs. Devendra & Ors. (First Appeal No.684 of 2013) decided on 8.10.2014, this Commission observed;
"As clearly recorded in the impugned order, the order of the District Forum passed on 01.04.2009 in execution of the above order took note of the fact that the manufacturing company had stopped production of the vehicle. It was for this reason that payment of Rs.1.0 lakhs to the complainant was ordered."
29. Recently, Competition Commission of India in Shri Shamsher Kataria Vs. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. and others, (Case No.03 of 2011 decided on 27.7.2015), where allegations have been made against certain car manufacturers about anti-competitive practices on their part, whereby the genuine spare parts of automobiles manufactured by them were not made available in the open market, observed as under;
"8.1.5 The Commission is of the view that the relevant market definition with respect to the present Opposite parties would be the same as provided in the Main Order. Therefore the relevant market in the present case would be as follows:
(i) manufacture and sale of cars in India,
(ii) sale of spare parts in India.
a. supply of spare parts, including diagnostic tools, technical manuals, catalogues etc. for the aftermarket usage in India and b. provision of aftersale services, including servicing of vehicles, maintenance and repair services in India."
30. The Competition Commission of India ultimately concluded, that certain car manufacturers are indulging in abuse of their dominant position thereby contravening the provisions of section 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.
31. Lastly, it would not be out of place to mention here, that as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a private car can be re-registered after 15 years. This goes on to show that legislature has kept in mind the running life of motor car at least to be of 15 years. In the present case, there is no rebuttal to the complainant's evidence, that he was maintaining the car regularly and properly since its purchase and during 5 years, it has run only 67,000 kms. The fact, that engine required overhauling or replacement only after 5 years speak for itself and goes on to show that the car has inherent defects. On the other hand, various decisions (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
32. Thus, this act of the petitioner in selling a car to the complainant in 2002 and thereafter, immediately stopping production of the subject car after one year and not having sufficient stocks of engine or its spare parts with it, are certainly unfair trade practice as well as restrictive trade practice. Both the fora below have gone into detail on every aspect of the matter and we find no ground to disagree with the well-reasoned findings given by both the fora below.
33. From the examination above, it is clear that findings of fact given by both fora below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which should justify intervention in exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Act.
34. Accordingly, present revision petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed. However, respondent no.1/complainant shall have to return the car in question to the petitioner.
35. No order as to cost.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... PREM NARAIN MEMBER