K S K MOHAMMED vs MOHANAN NAIR

HEARD. THIS appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in O. P. No. 82/99. The ground of attack made against the impugned order making the appellant who is the dealer also liable by the Forum below is that after having recorded a finding to the effect that the vehicle in question suffered from manufacturing defect the Forum below was not justified in making the appellant also liable and the order is not sustainable on that ground as against the appellant.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondents/complainants submitted before us that the Forum below passed the order making the dealer also liable on the ground that in the delivery note given to the complainants/1st and 2nd respondents by the appellant it is stated that the vehicle and accessories were in good condition at the time of delivery and on that ground the Counsel argued vehemently that the dealer is also liable. We find no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents/complainants in view of the legal position laid down by the Apex Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Anr. v. N. Sivakumar and Anr. , (2000) 10 SCC 654. Apex Court maintained the following observation made by the National Commission : "we make it clear that for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable. The liability must be borne by the manufacturer. "

Therefore, we are inclined to accept the contention urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Forum below erred grossly in making the appellant also liable. Vehicle involved suffered from manufacturing defect. So the manufacturer alone can be proceeded against for realisation of the amount ordered to be realised by the Forum below. Fastening liability on the appellant dealer by the Forum below is not sustainable. In the result, appeal is allowed. The appellant as dealer is not liable for any of the reliefs granted to the complainants by the Forum below. Appeal allowed.