Unless manufacturer’s knowledge is proved, decision fastening liability upon manufacturer would be untenable

The present special leave petition was filed against impugns an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The present case filed by the respondent stated that Antonio Paulo Vaz who bought the car was not given a new car and in place was given a used car of 2011.

District court also observed deficiency in service. The district forum’s order, (made on 27.09.2013) noted that the car had some defects; the undercarriage of the car was “fully corrugated and had scratch marks on the body.

The alloy wheels were also corrugated inside and the car also travelled almost 622 km. Also some parts such as music system was not provided although agreed.” For the matter the court ordered that the dealer and the appellant are jointly and severally liable to replace the car with a new one of the same model or to refund the entire amount of the car with interest @10% from the date given of delivery.Both were jointly and severally directed to pay 20,000/- to Vaz towards mental stress and agony in ₹ addition to costs of 5,000/-. ₹ Aggrieved by to order manufacturer appealed in State Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereafter “the Act”).

Which was dismissed by the court with a cost of Rs 5000/-Clause 1(iv) reserves to the appellant an overriding right to “make direct sales of the products and/or the spare parts to any persons within the territory” Clause 18 binds the appellant to conform to the warranty published by it and all implied warranties under law.

For this matter the court referred the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, KeralaThe judgment authored by Justice Ravindra Bhat observed : “Unless the manufacturer’s knowledge is proved, a decision fastening liability upon the manufacturer would be untenable,given that its relationship with the dealer, in the facts of this case, were on principal-to-principal basis”.

The appeal in the matter was allowed with no extra cost, setting aside the findings of the Consumer Fora as against Tata Motors.Tata Motors Ltd v Anonio Paulo Vaz and Another

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s