State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers ... vs Ford India Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. on 19 May, 2023
Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 23/08/2018
Date of Final Hearing: 01/05/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 19/05/2023
COMPLAINT CASE No.- CC/2018/35
IN THE MATTER OF :
M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Through: Director Ella Babu Rao,
H. No.04, Type Banyan Boriyakala C.G. Housing Board Colony,
RAIPUR (C.G.) - 492 001
Through: Shri Shishir Shrivastava, Advocate
... Complainant.
Vs.
1. Ford India Pvt. Ltd.,
N H 45, S.P. Koli Post, Near Mahindra City, Maraimalai Nagar,
Chengalpattu, Near Mahindra City, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu,
CHENNAI - 603 204
Through: Shri Utkarsh Shah, Advocate
... Opposite Party No.1
2. G.K. Ford,
G.K. Moto Corp Pvt. Ltd.
N.H.-06, Ring Road No.1, Village Sarona,
RAIPUR (C.G.) - 492 001
Through: Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate
... Opposite Party No.2
3. Simon Ford,
Mungeli Road Uslapur, Opp. Jain International School,
BILASPUR (C.G.) - 495 001
Through: Shri Sunil Patel, Advocate
... Opposite Party No.3
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI GOPAL CHANDRA SHIL, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER PRESENT: -
Shri Shishir Shrivastava, Advocate for the complainant. Shri Utkarsh Shah, Advocate, for the opposite party No.1. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, for the opposite party No.2. Shri Sunil Patel, Advocate, for the opposite party No.3.
J U DG E M E NT PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This complaint, under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in Partly Allowed Page 1 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
selling defective vehicle having serious defects / manufacturing defects to the complainant and seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective vehicle with new one along with all additional cost like insurance, RTO etc. or to refund the amount paid by the complainant for the vehicle Rs.30,97,047/- (Thirty Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand and Forty Seven ) the ex-showroom price of the vehicle in question along with RTO, insurance and repairing cost of the vehicle and interest, compensation for deficiency in service & unfair trade practice and mental agony Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs), Rs,5,19,750/- (Five Lacs Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) for the fare of the vehicles hired by the complainant while the vehicle in question was in possession of the opposite parties, Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lacs) for mental stress and physical agony, Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) for financial losses and Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) for cost of litigation has also been sought along with any other relief this Commission deems fit to award.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per the complaint, are that the complainant purchased a new Endeavour star dust silver color vehicle bearing engine No.GLS 55807 Chassis No. MAJAXXMRWAGL 55807 on 22.11.2016 on payment of consideration excluding RTO and insurance Rs.30,97,047/- to the opposite party No.2 with the help of finance provided by the HDFC Bank Ltd. As informed by the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 the vehicle was insured plus manufacturing warranty for two years or run up to 1,00,000 (One Lac) kms and in the instant case the vehicle in question was still under warranty. The complainant averred that the said vehicle broke down between Kondagaon and Bastar on 01.02.2017 at around 1:15 pm. It is further averred that in fact it was the fourth instance when the vehicle broke down within three months after Partly Allowed Page 2 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
purchase of the vehicle. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to kindly send breakdown van to attend the vehicle and to take the vehicle to the vehicle for repairing but no response was given by the opposite party No.2. On 02.02.2017 the representative of the complainant personally visited the Showroom of the opposite party No.2 and requested to response the complaint made in the email by the complainant. On 16.02.2017 the complainant sent letter of request through email regarding defects in the vehicle and for its replacement on the ground that the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defects as it had broken down for a number of times in a short span of time. It is further averred that on 24.03.2018 the vehicle again broke down between Ambikapur and Bilaspur Districts, the vehicle was taken to the service center of the opposite party No.3 on 25.03.2018 for repairing and then explained about the defects in the vehicle. The service manager of opposite party No.3 was not in a position to state a time for completion of the repairing work, even spare parts were also not available at the service center of the opposite party No.3. The complainant sent an email on 02.04.2018 intimating that the vehicle in question has broke down for the fifth time in the middle of highway and main problem in the vehicle was in the automatic transmission gearbox. Since the problem occurred repeatedly, the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 and No.2 that if the defect has been identified, the opposite party should rectify the defect by recalling the vehicle for replacement of defective parts, but no response from the opposite parties was ever received.
3. On 11.04.2018 again an email was sent to the opposite party No.1 regarding repairing status of the vehicle as the vehicle was at the service centre of opposite party No.3 for 15 days and even the service manager of Partly Allowed Page 3 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
the opposite party No.3 was not picking up the phone calls of the complainant. On 30.04.2018 also again an email was sent to the effect that the complainant has not received any update from the opposite party No.3 and it was informed that the complainant does not want to keep the vehicle and wanted replacement of the vehicle because the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defects and was breaking down frequently. On 04.05.2018 the complainant made a request through email that the complainant had sent his driver to pick up the vehicle, the driver took a test ride with the service manager of the opposite party No.3 and it was found that the vehicle seemed fine. The opposite party No.3 assured that the vehicle is repaired equivalent to the condition as a new one. The complainant took the vehicle to Raipur but on the way the vehicle started unusual sounds and vibration. He took the vehicle again to the opposite party No.3 who said that they cannot repair the vehicle and asked the complainant to go to the opposite party No.2. On 05.05.2018 again the vehicle was sent to the Service Centre of the opposite party No.2 and history of the vehicle was informed to them. But till date the opposite party No.2 has not responded regarding defects in the vehicle and the vehicle is still under repairs with opposite party No.2. It clearly appears that the opposite party No.1 & 2 sold a defective vehicle to the complainant, having manufacturing defects, hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice this complaint has been filed. The complainant has further averred that he missed several meetings and tenders and suffered huge loss and the complainant was forced to hire vehicle from Jaboo Holidays and incurred expenses. Bills of travelling expenses have also been brought on record.
Partly Allowed Page 4 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
4. The opposite party No.1 in its written version has at the outset denied all the allegations except the admitted facts and resisted the complaint on the ground that the complaint is not a „consumer‟ of the opposite party No.1, as defined under the Act. The opposite party No.1 further averred that there was no privity of contract between the opposite party No.1 and the complainant. It is also averred that the said email messages were sent from the concerned Human Resource Department of the complainant which itself signifies that the disputed vehicle was not purchased for personal use and instead was used for an official / commercial purpose. The opposite party No.1 further averred that the opposite party No.2 & 3 are the authorized dealers of the opposite partyNo.1, they are not agents of the opposite party No.1 and all three entities function entirely in different and separate manner altogether and the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the acts and omissions of its authorized dealers. It is also averred that no cause of action has arisen against the opposite party No.1 as all the allegations have been leveled against the opposite party No.2 & 3 who are authorized dealers and the opposite party No.1 is not responsible for any shortcomings or faults of the opposite party No.1.
5. The opposite party No.1 admitted the fact of purchase of the vehicle in question by the complainant and averred that the complainant never brought the vehicle for free service and was reported for the first time on 27.03.2018 with an odometer reading of 45,405 Kms. Thereafter the vehicle was reported to the service centre of opposite party No.2 on 21.06.2018 and the vehicle was duly repaired as per the instructions given by the complainant and thereafter the vehicle was brought to the service centre of the opposite party No.2 on 18.08.2018, 30.05.2019 and 05.06.2019. Partly Allowed Page 5 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
In all the above occasions the vehicle was repaired in a prescribed manner and the complainant admittedly had no objections towards the same. The customer care department of this opposite party was contacted by one Lalita Gontina from the Human Resource Department of the complainant on 17.08.2018 alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle which was replied appropriately by the customer care department.
6. The opposite party No.1 further averred that as per section 13 (1)(c) of the Act the allegation of manufacturing defect against an opposite party with regards to a vehicle has to prove by way of expert opinion which is not filed with the complaint. He has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon‟ble National Commission in Sushila Automobiles Private Limited Vs. Dr. Birendra Prasad Narain & Ors, 2010 SCC online NCDRC 144 and averred that in that case it was held that submission of an expert report in consonance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act is of utmost necessity and the same cannot be dispensed away. It has also been averred that upon bare reading of the complaint it is affirmative that the grievances of the complainant are with respect to the opposite party Nos.2 & 3 and not with the opposite party No.1 and being relationship of the opposite parties on „principal to principal‟ basis this opposite party is not responsible at all for the acts and omissions of opposite party Nos.2 & 3. It has also been averred that the complainant itself was negligent for maintenance of the vehicle and he did not take his car to the service centre for carrying out the free services as per prescribed limit of its run. In fact the vehicle was first brought to the service centre after running 45,405 kms. Thus, the complainant himself was not interested in maintaining the vehicle as per schedule and blaming the result of such fault upon the opposite party which is utterly malafide and baseless and in such a Partly Allowed Page 6 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
situation of insufficient care and maintenance the warranty cover was not available. In the parawise reply this opposite party has denied the fact that any communication regarding breakdown of the vehicle was done with this opposite party. In reply to para 3. q. of the complaint it has specifically been averred that every new vehicle has to be maintained in a manner prescribed by the manufacturer and any failure to abide by the same and any faults accruing of the said shall be attributable to the purchaser of the vehicle and not the manufacturer. On the above grounds the opposite party No.1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
7. The opposite party No.2 in its written version except the admitted facts has denied all the allegations against it. The opposite party No.2 has also taken the defence that the complainant is not a „consumer‟ as defined under the Act and the vehicle was being used for „commercial purpose‟ and it is supported by the statement in the complaint that the complainant lost various contracts/ tenders as he could not go for the same due to breakdown of the vehicle. It is also averred that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission because although the allegation is of manufacturing defect and no expert opinion/report is submitted to support this allegation. In reply to para No.3 (f) of the complaint it is stated that the vehicle was for the first time brought to the service center of opposite party No.2 on 01.02.2017 and by that time the vehicle was driven 6,669 kms. It is also stated that prior to such breakdown on 01.02.2017, the opposite party No.2 had already provide first free service of the vehicle on 09.01.2017 when no manufacturing defect was found and by that time the vehicle was driven 5,774 kms. It is denied that break down of 01.02.2017 was the fourth incident of breakdown of the vehicle in Partly Allowed Page 7 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
question. Thus, refuting all the adverse allegations leveled against it, the opposite party No.2 has averred that the complainant has made baseless allegations and it has even failed to state the exact manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The opposite party No.2 sold the new vehicle to the complainant and whatever problems developed in the said vehicle were only due to negligent use of the vehicle and not due to any manufacturing defect. The opposite party No.2 always indentified the problem in the vehicle, repaired the vehicle, changed parts under the warranty and thus it has not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed against this opposite party.
8. The opposite party No.3 in its written version has denied all the allegations leveled against it and stated that the vehicle in question was brought to the service centre of the opposite party No.3 on 27.03.2018 only. The vehicle was repaired, complete automatic transmission gear box was changed and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. This fact has specifically denied that it was ever stated to the complainant that opposite party No.3 has no spare parts of the vehicle. It is also denied that only after 2 kms run from the service centre of the opposite party No.3, the vehicle started giving unusual sound and when reported the opposite party No.3 said to show the vehicle to respondent No.2. The opposite party No.3 prayed that the complaint has no substance and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
9. In support of the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit of Mr. Ella Babu Rao, the Director of the complainant company and documents as per list marked as Annexure P-1 to P-52 which includes Partly Allowed Page 8 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
photocopy of certificate of registration of the vehicle in question, insurance certificate, email conversation between 01.01.2017 to 04.05.2018 in 11 pages, vehicle report card, invoices issued by the GK Ford and bills of traveling expenses issued by Jaboo Holidays. The opposite party No.1 has filed affidavit of its Controller India MS & S of Ford India Private Limited Mr. Satish Varma Datla and its General Manager and photocopy of documents marked as Annexure A-1 authorization letter, Annexure A-2 email correspondence with the complainant, Annexure A-3 the Warranty and Service Guide. The opposite party No.2 has filed affidavit of its General Manager Mr. Vivek Gupta in support of the written version. The opposite party No.3 has filed affidavit of its Service Manager Mr. Ramdutt Borikar, in support of the written version and has filed photocopy of bills of repairs of the vehicle in question marked as Annexure R-1 to R-3.
10. We have heard final arguments of all parties and perused the record. We have also gone through the written arguments and case-laws submitted by the complainant as well as the opposite party No.1.
11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of record the core issues which need determination in the complaint are as under : -
i. Whether the complainant is a „consumer‟ as defined under the Act?
ii. Whether the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect, if yes then who is liable for the same ?
12. So far as the defence of the opposite party No.1 and 2 that the complainant does not come under purview of „consumer‟ as defined under the Act is concerned, in this regard judgement of Hon‟ble National Commission in Landmark Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Frostees Export (India) Pvt. Partly Allowed Page 9 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Ltd., IV (2020) CPJ 89 (NC) is worth mentioning here, wherein this issue has been decided after considering it from all angles. Paragraph No.4 of the above judgement is under : -
"4. As far as his first submission is concerned, the case of the complainant is that the car in question was purchased by it for the use of its Directors. If the car was purchased for the personal use of the Directors of the company it cannot be said to be that it was purchased for the commercial purpose. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of a Three-Member Bench of this Commission in CC No. 51/2006 Crompton Greaves Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and the following view was taken:-
"Noticing an apparent conflict in the decisions rendered by this Commission in Controls and Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. and T and T Motors Ltd. IV (2007) CPJ 1 (NC) and General Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.S. Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. [First Appeal No. 723 of 2006] decided on 07.02.2013, both rendered by Benches comprising two Members, the following issue was referred to this larger Bench, for decision:-
Whether the purchase of a car or any other goods by a company for the use/personal use of its Director amounts to purchase for a commercial purpose, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, or not.
11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the issue referred to the larger Bench is answered as follows:-
(a) If a car or any other goods are obtained or any services are hired or availed by a company for the use/personal use of its directors or employees, such a transaction does not amount to purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services for a commercial purpose, irrespective of whether the goods or services are used solely for the personal purposes of the directors or employees of the company or they are used primarily for the use of the directors or employees of the company and incidentally for the purposes of the company.
(b) The purchase of a car or any other goods or hiring or availing of services by a company for the purposes of the company amount to purchase for a commercial purpose, even if such a car or other goods or such services are incidentally used by the directors or employees of the company for their personal purposes."
In the facts of the instant case also the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for his self-use as stated in para No.3. e. of the complaint. There is nothing to show that the car was being used for the company or Partly Allowed Page 10 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
for earning profit. Though, in reply to para No. 3. e. of the complaint, the opposite party No.1 has stated that each and every time when they wanted to contact the complainant, the same could be done only through H R department of the company, which shows that the vehicle was used for official/commercial purpose. Whereas the opposite party No.2 has denied the statement of the complainant made in paragraph No. 3.e., on the ground that the complainant is a company involved in building constructions and civil engineering at large scale and the vehicle was used for attending meeting with Govt. Officials for obtaining tenders /contracts etc. We have considered the contention made in the complaint, the written version, the arguments advanced by all parties in this regard. We are not impressed with the reasons and arguments advanced by the opposite parties in this regard. Merely doing correspondence through H R department of the company and doing business by the company at large scale or traveling in the vehicle in question by the Director of company cannot oust the complainant from the purview of definition of „consumer‟ as per discussion and settled principle in Landmark Cars Pvt. Ltd. (supra) case by the Hon‟ble National Commission. Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant very well comes under the purview of „consumer‟ and decide this issue in favour of the complainant.
13. So far as the issue of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question is concerned, in this regard Chief Engineer of Electronics and Mechanics Division, Public Works Department, Raipur was appointed as Technical Expert/Commissioner to inspect the vehicle in question and to give report about the fault/defect in the vehicle and to specifically comment whether it is repairable or irreparable. The Chief Engineer, PWD (E/M) Division, Raipur (C.G) submitted his report dated 30.12.2022, Partly Allowed Page 11 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
in which specific comment regarding whether the vehicle is repairable or irreparable was not mentioned then on the directions of this Commission he submitted his report dated 13.02.2023 in which he has mentioned that the defects in the vehicle are repairable. But in the both these reports one thing is common that „on the basis of technical examination dated 19.12.2022 as defects in different parts of the vehicle is developing continuously, it appears that the vehicle has manufacturing defect‟. The manufacturer of the vehicle in question opposite party No.1 and its seller dealer opposite party No.2 both have taken the defence that the complaint is filed without any technical report in support of the allegation of manufacturing defects and to prove the allegation of manufacturing defect expert‟s report, in support of such allegation, ought to have been filed. In view of the above report of Expert/Commissioner appointed by this Commission, there appears no doubt that the allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle is proved. The Technical Expert/Commissioner has also opined that the vehicle is repairable but looking to the manufacturing defects exist in the vehicle and the fact that the vehicle has already been brought to the service centre many times and it is lying in the service center for a long time, we are not inclined to order for repair of the vehicle.
14. Otherwise also when we consider the chronology of development of defects the vehicle was purchased on 11.11.2016, first free servicing was done on 09.01.2017, on 01.02.2017 the defect propler shaft developed, and on the same day email was sent to the opposite party No.1 & 2, on 16.02.2017 the opposite party No.2 repaired the vehicle. On 15.07.2017 the vehicle developed defect of break disc, on 23.02.2018 defect in disc rotor, 17.03.2021 defect in torque converter and on 18.08.2018 defect in steering Partly Allowed Page 12 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
wheel was developed in the vehicle. At the time of inspection of the vehicle by the Technical Expert/ Commissioner also data record of service dealer was verified and chronology of servicing and development of defects and their repairing work are mentioned in detail in his report. These all facts further fortify the opinion of the expert that the vehicle was having manufacturing defects. In this regard we have also gone through the email correspondence between the parties which are placed on record as Annexure P-6 to P-16. In which the complainant has reported frequent breakdowns of the vehicle to the opposite parties. Therefore, when we consider the facts and circumstances of the case in entirety and the Expert‟s Report we do not have any doubt in our mind that the vehicle in question is suffering manufacturing defect for which the opposite party No.1 Manufacturer and opposite party No.2 the Seller /Dealer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in supplying and selling such a defective car. The opposite party No.3 was having no role to play in the manufacturing defect exists in the vehicle or in selling it, hence it cannot be held liable. The opposite party No.3 has merely provided one service and thereafter when needed the vehicle was again brought to the service centre of opposite party No.2. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of the complainant fastening joint and several liability upon the opposite party Nos.1 & 2
15. The opposite party No.1 in its written version and at the time of arguments also argued that the complainant himself was negligent in maintenance of the vehicle. He argued that the vehicle was never taken by the complainant for undertaking its free service and was reported for the first time on 27.03.2018 with an odometer reading of 45,405 Kms. Regarding the first servicing of the vehicle and its meter reading there Partly Allowed Page 13 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
appears contradictory averments of the opposite party Nos.1 & 2. The opposite party No.2 has averred in its written version and during arguments also that first free service was provided by the opposite party No.2 on 09.01.2017 when the vehicle was driven 5,774 Kms and till 02.02.2017 the vehicle was driven 6,669 Kms. Hence it cannot be said that the vehicle was brought for first servicing on 27.03.2018 with odometer reading of 45,405 Kms. The technical expert has also mentioned in his report that the first servicing of the vehicle was done on 09.01.2017. Thus, we do not find any substance in this objection of the opposite party No.1 also.
16. We have also gone through the case-laws relied upon by the complainant and the opposite party No.1, but being the facts different they can safely be distinguished. In the case-laws cited by the opposite party No.1 the need of expert report regarding manufacturing defect is discussed whereas in the instant case, we already have report of expert which says that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
17. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, looking to the fact that the vehicle was purchased on 11.11.2016 and thereafter as discussed above continuously defects developed in the vehicle was needed to brought to the service centre frequently and in August 2018 the car developed defect in steering wheel thereafter the complaint was filed. Hence to consider the depreciated value in the year 2018 we deem it appropriate to consider the Insured Declared Value (IDV) as mentioned in the Insurance Certificate cum Policy Schedule, Annexure P-4 for the period up to November 2017 i.e. Rs.29,13,064/- as since very beginning the complainant could not enjoy the vehicle comfortably and every now Partly Allowed Page 14 of 15 Complaint No.: M/s. Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
CC/18/35 Vs. 19/05/2023
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
and then there were problems developed in the vehicle. Hence, we are of the view that during the period when the vehicle was handed over for repairing to the opposite party No.2, the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.29,13,064/- and this would be the just and proper compensation against the purchase price of the vehicle which is considered after deducting reasonable and applicable depreciation for the period use of vehicle.
18. Therefore, for the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that this complaint has got substance, we partly allow the same and pass the following directions jointly and severally to the opposite party No.1 Manufacturer & opposite party No.2 Dealer/Seller of the vehicle in question: -
i. To pay the complainant Rs.29,13,064/- (Twenty Nine Lacs Thirteen Thousand and Sixty Four) against the purchase price of the vehicle with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 23.08.2018. This award of interest will also take care of the financial losses suffered by the complainant.
Or In alternative to handover a new vehicle of the same model of the latest manufacturing date to the complainant.
ii. To pay the complainant Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation for mental and physical agony.
iii. To pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) as cost of litigation.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Gopal Chandra Shil) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
President Member Member
/05/2023 /05/2023 /05/2023
Pronounced On: 19th May 2023
Partly Allowed Page 15 of 15