TV SUNDARAM IYENGAR And SONS LTD. vs K. Rajendran

OPPOSITE parties 2, 3 and 4 in O.P. No. 514/98 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram are aggrieved by the order passed by the Forum and preferred this appeal. Lower Forum on a consideration of the materials placed before it recorded a finding to the effect that both the manufacturer and the dealer (appellants herein) are liable to replace the car involved with a new car of the same model within two months. Forum below also ordered payment of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the complainant/1st respondent. Forum below further ordered that if replacement is not done as such, the opposite parties shall pay to the complainant Rs. 2,99,693/- with interest and Rs. 2,500/-. Forum below also ordered that in case of replacement or payment of the amount the opposite parties are entitled to take back the old car from the possession of the complainant and the complainant, if necessary, shall hand over the same through that Forum. Three months'' time has been granted by the Forum below to comply with the impugned order.

THE main contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants before us is that since the allegation made in the complaint is manufacturing defect of the car involved and the finding of the Forum below is also that the vehicle sold to the first respondent suffered from manufacturing defect the Forum below erred in granting any of the reliefs as against the dealer (appellants). It is submitted by both sides that the production of the car of the model sold by the appellants as a dealer to the 1st respondent/complainant was stopped by the manufacturer and it is not possible to replace the car. Our attention was drawn to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Another v. N. Siva Kumar, and Another, (2000) 10 SCC 654, and relying on the legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that decision it is contended on behalf of appellants that when the manufacturer has stopped the manufacturing of the premier 1.38 diesel cars a new car cannot be ordered to be given to the 1st respondent and the order to that effect cannot be complied with.

Supreme Court held in the decision cited supra that in such situations, Supreme Court is left with no alternative except to direct that the order passed by the State Commission for the refund of Rs. 1,77,200/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the complaint till actual payment, together with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony.

IN view of the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra it can be held that the dealer cannot be made liable for the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. As manufacturing defect is alleged in the complaint and the finding of the Forum below is also that the vehicle sold by the appellants (dealer) to the first respondent suffered from manufacturing defect the dealer (appellants) cannot be made liable and the course open to us, is to allow the appeal absolving completely the dealers/appellants. IN the result, appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order as against appellants and appellants are absolved completely of liability fastened on them by the Forum below. Complaint is dismissed as against the appellants. IN the circumstance of the case the parties are directed to suffer their costs. Appeal allowed