MANAGER JAIKA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. vs LEELA SAHU & ANR.

Smt. Leela Sahu filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner who is dealer of Hyundai Motors and Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Hyundai Motors Ltd. (manufacturer) alleging that she was sold a Hyundai vehicle having a manufacturing defect regarding operation of its air bags.

The opposite party on being served resisted the complaint by filing written statements. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence and the pleadings allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties as under: - "A. Opposite Party No.1 and 2, either jointly or severally, shall pay Rs.8,95,000/- (Rupees eight lakh ninety five thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental pain and agony;

B. In case the aforesaid amount is not paid to complainant with the stipulated time, the opposite party no.1 and 2 will be responsible to pay, either jointly or severally, interest to the complainant at the rate of 7 percent p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment;

C. Opposite Party no.1 and 2, either jointly or severally, shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of litigation expenses."

The petitioner as well as opposite party No.2 M/s Hyundai Motors Ltd. preferred separate appeals against the order of the District Forum, Chhattishgarh. The District Forum on re-appreciation of evidence partly accepted the appeals and while maintaining the remaining order of the District Forum, reduced the compensation payable jointly and severally by the petitioner and opposite party No.2 to Rs.2.5 lakhs.

It is pertinent to note that opposite partyNo.2 manufacturer being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission preferred revision petition No.1014/2016. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission dismissed the said revision petition preferred by opposite party No.2 manufacturer vide order dated 25.4.2016.

The petitioner dealer who sold the car to the respondent No.1/complainant has come in revision on the ground that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that he being the dealer/seller of the car cannot be held liable for manufacturing defect in the car.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The sole issue which needs consideration in this revision petition is whether the dealer who has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the car, can be held liable for manufacturing defect found in the car. This issue is no more res-integra. Similar issue came up before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of Abhinandan vs, Ajit Kumar Verma & Ors., I (2008) CPJ 336 (NC) wherein this Commission took the view that the dealer of the goods cannot be held liable for manufacturing defect. Relevant observation of this Commission is reproduced as under: "Submission advanced by Ms. Prerna Mehta for the petitioner is that the third set of VCP was given on 30.10.1992 by respondent No. 1 at the service centre of the manufacturer-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for repairs and liability for the awarded amount, therefore, cannot be fastened on the petitioner. In support of that submission, she has invited our attention to the document at pages 19 and 20. She has further submitted that both the Fora below have returned finding that the VCP was having manufacturing defect and for manufacturing defect it is only the manufacturer who is liable to refund the cost of VCP. According to her, Forum''s order dated 24.6.1996 has attained finality qua the manufacturer as it did not file any appeal against that order. Document at page No. 19 would show that VCP bearing chassis No. 4179 was given for repairs at the service centre of the manufacturer by respondent No. 1 on 30.10.1992. Document at page No. 20 is the copy of letter allegedly sent under certificate of posting by the manufacturer to respondent No. 1 intimating that the set is lying in OK condition and can be collected on any working day during office hours by respondent No. 1. Genuineness of this letter was under challenge by respondent No. 1 as may be seen from the order of State Commission. Be that as it may from the document at page 19 and the averments made in complaint, it is manifest that the third VCP set was not given on 3.10.1992 to the petitioner, dealer. That being the position, it will be the liability of manufacturer to compensate respondent No. 1. That apart, in view of the decision in Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Anr. v. N. Siva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 SCC 654 , the petitioner, dealer cannot be held liable for the manufacturing defect in the VCP. Thus, the orders passed by Fora below cannot be legally sustained."

We do not find any reason to differ with the above-noted view taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Commission. Therefore the revision petition filed by the petitioner-dealer is allowed, the orders of the Fora below qua the petitioner are set aside and the complaint qua the petitioner is dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the respondent no.1/complainant to recover the amount awarded by the Fora below from the opposite party No.2/manufacturer.