Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fiat Group Authomobiles India Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Swadesh Yadav on 14 October, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29208 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 27069 of 2024
FIAT GROUP AUTHOMOBILES INDIA PVT. LTD. NOW FCA INDIA
AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.
Versus
SWADESH YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
_________________________________________________________________
ORDER
(Reserved on 24/9/2024)
(Pronounced on 14/10/2024)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated
02/07/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission whereby the revision preferred by it has been
dismissed and the revision preferred by respondent No.2 has been partly
allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29208 -2-
2. The short facts of the case are that respondent No.1 had purchased
a Fiat Linea Multijet Active Diesel vehicle from the dealer respondent
No.2. As per respondent No.1 the vehicle had certain manufacturing
defects for rectification of which he had visited the workshop of the
dealer repeatedly even during the warranty period but the problem was
not rectified. He complained that there was a problem of the steering
wheel and the vehicle used to swerve to the left. Despite repeated efforts
having been made by the dealer the said problem could not be rectified,
which amounts to a manufacturing defect.
3. On such contentions a complaint was filed by respondent No.1
before the District Consumer Redressal Forum for replacement of the
vehicle with a new vehicle and for damages. Upon being noticed the
opposite parties filed their reply. The Consumer Forum appointed an
expert Shri G.S. Institute of Technology and Science, Indore for
submission of the report on the alleged manufacturing defect. The report
of the expert was submitted on 18/12/2018 in which it was stated that the
problem relating to the steering misbehaviour is still existing in the
vehicle which needs to be resolved to ensure a comfortable drive. The
service history during initial stages of purchase indicates that there was a
repeated problem relating to steering and company had tried to overcome
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29208 -3-
it. It was also stated that it is unclear if any investigation was made by the
company for checking malfunction in power steering pump, air pockets
in power cylinder, oil leakage from power cylinder or defects in hinges of
strut of front wheels. On the basis of the said report the District Forum
held that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defects. In
consequence it directed for a new vehicle to be given to respondent No.1
and in alternate to pay a sum of Rs.8,66,283/- to him being the value of
the vehicle. The said order was affirmed by the State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum by order dated 21/4/2022 in appeal having been
preferred by both the opposite parties. In further revisions preferred by
both of them, while the finding of existence of manufacturing defect in
the vehicle has been maintained by the National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission, but the petitioner has been held liable to pay
2/3rd of the value of the vehicle by the impugned order.
4. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner on the
ground that it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect in
the vehicle. When the inspection of the vehicle was done it had already
covered 50,000 Kms. which itself proves that it was roadworthy. Had
there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle would not have run for
such a long time and for so many kilometers. Up to 18/10/2021 the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29208 -4-
vehicle had been used for 83611 Kms. This extensive usage itself shows
that there was no defect in the vehicle and which in any case impacted
the nature and extent of any potential defects. It is further contended that
the National Commission has wrongly applied the principle of
proportionality and has directed the petitioner to pay 2/3 rd of the vehicle's
value. A reasonable deduction for the usage of the vehicle ought to have
been made. The report of the expert committee itself had clarified that
there was no defect in the vehicle. It is hence submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order deserves to be set
aside. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. V/s.
Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. 2023 SCC Online SC 877 and Maruti Udyog
Ltd. V/s. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 644. In
addition reliance has also been placed on certain decisions of National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission which is most unfortunate and
contemptous as the decisions of the Commission are not to be cited as a
precedent before the High Court.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and have perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29208 -5-
6. The vehicle was purchased by respondent No.1 on 17/2/2015. The
complaint was filed by him on 3/9/2015 itself. Within this short period
the vehicle had been taken by him to respondent No.2 for rectification of
the defects which were found therein on numerous occasions. He was
complaining of the defect that the vehicle swerves towards the left on its
own and does not run straight. The defect was tried to be rectified by the
dealer on numerous occasions but the same persisted. When despite
repeated attempts the defect could not be cured the complaint was filed
by respondent No.1 as the vehicle was neither replaced nor any amount
paid to him. The vehicle was within the warranty period.
7. During the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum an
expert was appointed by the Forum whose report was submitted on
18/12/2018 in which the following conclusion were arrived at :-
"(a) - Problem related to steering misbehaviour is still existing
in the vehicle,
(b) - Problem needs to be resolved to ensure a comfortable
drive,
(c) - Service history during initial stages of purchase of vehicle
indicates that there was a repeated problem related to steering
and the company had tried out certain solutions to overcome it,
(d) - It is unclear if any investigations were made by the
company for checking malfunction in power steering pump, air
pockets in power cylinder, oil leakage from power cylinder or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29208 -6-
defects in hinges or struct of front wheels."
8. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid report, it is evident that even
after a period of almost four years from the date of purchase of the
vehicle the problem relating to steering misbehaviour still existed in it. It
was opined that the problem needs to be resolved to ensure a comfortable
drive. Service history showed that there was a repeated problem relating
to steering and it was unclear as to what steps had been taken by the
company for resolving the same. The report of the expert by itself proves
that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. If the vehicle
swerves to the left on its own and does not run straight the same is bound
to be a manufacturing defect and nothing else. This defect existed not
only during the initial visits of respondent No.1 to the dealer but even
after the vehicle had run for more than four years. Thus the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no manufacturing
defect in the vehicle cannot be accepted.
9. Only for the reason that the vehicle had run 83611 Kms. by
18/10/2021, it cannot be said that there was no manufacturing defect in it.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to canvass before this
Court that had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle the
respondent No.1 would not have run the same. The said submission is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29208 -7-
preposterous. Respondent No.1 could not have been expected not to use
the vehicle till the defect was cured. In the initial few months after
purchase of the vehicle he took the same to respondent No.2 for
rectification of the defect but the same was not rectified. He had paid a
substantial amount for purchase of the vehicle and if due to fault of the
company and dealer he was not able to run the same smoothly, he cannot
be charged with of having still used the vehicle. If he continued to use the
vehicle even with the manufacturing defect, which he would have
logically done having paid a considerable amount for the vehicle, it
cannot be held that there was no manufacturing defect.
10. The Commission has itself deducted an amount of 1/3rd from the
cost of the vehicle for its use. Further it has held that the liability for
manufacturing defect has to lie with the manufacturer since it is he who
had manufactured the vehicle. The dealer has no or very little role to play
in manufacturing of the vehicle and he is only an intermediatory and
cannot be held liable for the same. The record indicates that respondent
No.2 had made repeated efforts for resolving the grievance of respondent
No.1 but since the same was beyond its control the same could not be
resolved. It was a manufacturing defect and dealer could hardly do
anything in that regard, the liability of which can only be of the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29208 -8-
company. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case and hence do not help
him in any manner.
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error
having been committed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission in passing the impugned order dated 2/7/2024 which is
accordingly affirmed, as a result of which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SS/-
