Enfield India Ltd. vs N.P. Singh

WHETHER the manufacturers are absolved of their warranty obligations for the sales made through Canteen Stores Department? WHETHER the obligation of conforming to the terms of the warranty, rests primarily on the manufacturer and their authorised dealers in the field ? These are the two significant questions arising in this appeal.

THE facts lie in a narrow compass and are not in serious dispute. THE respondent-consumer who is a retired defence personnel had purchased a Bullet Enfield (Deluxe) motor cycle from appellant No. 2 M/s. Manmohan Auto Stores, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh through the Canteen Stores Department, Ambala Cantt. THE delivery note was issued to him on 30th of November, 1992 against the Canteen Stores Depart ment purchase order No. 5365 dated the 30th of November. 1992 of a sum of Rs. 31,974.00 for the obligations under the warranty and after-sale service the respondent was to visit the appellant No. 3 M/s. Shiva Automobiles at Yamuna Nagar. The complainant-respondent''s case was that in fact he was delivered a motor cycle other than the one which had been shown to him. This had inherent defect therein and in its very maiden driven from Chandigarh to Yamuna Nagar, it started giving trouble. The Engine would stop every five to ten minutes and it had to be cooled down repeatedly. The respondent, therefore, returned mid-way to appellant No. 2 at Chandigarh and pointed out the inherent faults in the vehicle. However, the behaviour of the said appellant for being co-operative was arrogant and rude. The helpless consumer was told that the vehicle would be alright after some driving mileage. Yet again on 12th of December, 1992 the respondent approached the dealer at Chandigarh but they refused to replace the motor cycle or to rectify the fault and referred him to M/s. Shiva Automobiles at Yamuna Nagar. Thereafter the respondent made resort to the latter concern but without any success and again went back to the dealer at Chandigarh on 14th of December, 1992 to reiterate his version. Later on the 26th of December, 1992 the silencerand upper portion of the engine got burnt due to excessive heating. Fuel efficiency also slid down below 16 Kins, per litre. On the consumer''s behest, the Canteen Stores Department also wrote a letter to the appellant but he did not remove the defect. Legal notice was also served upon the appellant but no reply was received. Compelled by the inaction of the appellant, the respondent knocked at the door of the District Forum, Jagadhri.

All three appellants contested the complaint and took up the preliminary objections with regard to territorial jurisdiction. On merits also the appellants contested respondent''s stand.

5.THE parties led affidavit evidence in support of their respective cases and placed the documents on the record, the authenticity which was not challenged. During the course of the proceedings the District Forum got the motor cycle tested from Shri Nisar Hussain, who is a Senior Executive Service Engineer of Enfield India Ltd. On 12th of June, 1993 he tested the motor cycle and found certain defects including engine missing (carburator defective), exhaust pipe having become bluish, fork oil seal leakage, and tappets being loose. On the direction of the District Forum these defects were got removed by appellant No. 3. On the basis of the material before it the District Forum found that the appellants did not attend to the reasonable requests of the consumer with regard to the patent defects in the vehicle and consequently granted 6000/- as compensation with a direction that three free services be also extended to the consumer and any further defect noticed be removed within the period thereof. M/s. Enfield India Limited and their authorised dealers appeal against the said order. Mr. Sanjay Vij, learned Counsel for the appellant in a persistent and able argument had at-; tempted to buttress their some what untenable case. In order to evade all liability, it was argued that M/s. Enfield India Limited had sold the vehicle to the Canteen Store Department, Ambala and, therefore, the purchaser thereof was the said department and not the respondent-consumer Shri N.P. Singh. THE specious plea was that any complaint with regard to the vehicle could only be preferred by the Canteen Store Department and not the respondent. Reliance was placed on Annexures A and B being the invoice and delivery note which mentions the name of the Canteen Store Department therein. THE aforesaid submission, though it may bring some credit to the ingenuity of the learned Counsel is patently fallacious. It is not in dispute that M/s. Enfield India Limited are manufacturers of the motor-cycle sold under the brand name of "Bullet" Enfield (Deluxe)". Nor is it in doubt that this appellant markets this motor-cycle throughout the length and breath of the country through a selected chain of authorised dealers. THE mere fact that the sale of the vehicle is channelised through the Canteen Store Department for supply to defence personnel through their authorised agents would not efface the basic fact that the ultimate purchaser is the consumer and the appellants remains as the manufacturers qua him. It appears to us that a specious plea that because this appellant may be making sales to authorised dealers on a principal to principal basis or channelising them through the Canteen Store Department would in any way absolve them of their primel responsibility to the consumer with regard to the warranties for the goods must be rejected. This is the more so, when reference is made to the definition of a ''trader'' in Clause (q) of Section 2 of the Act, which is in the following terms: TRADER: "trader" in relation to any goods means a person who sells or distribute any goods for sale and includes the manufacturer thereof, and where such goods are sold or distributed in package form, includes the packer thereof."

7. A plain reading thereof makes it manifest that a manufacturer is squarely within the ambit of a trader and when defective goods are sold or marketed by him, the consumer can lodge a complaint on the basic cause of action for such goods suffering from one or more defects or a deficiency in service in respect of any after sale service agreed to. It follows that on the present set of facts, the Canteen Store Department is mere conduit through which the manufactured product of this appellant are sold or distributed. It appears somewhat curious that a concern of the standing of M/s. Enfield India Limited wish to dodge the obligation under the warranties for their prestigious good by resorting to an evasive plea of the present kind. The issue herein seems to us so plain that it would be wasteful to elaborate it any further and labour the obvious. In the wake of the aforesaid rational, the answer to the first question posed at the very out-set has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that a manufacturer is not absolved of his warranty obligations for sales made through the Canteen Store Department to the individual members of the defence personnel. That takes us to the second limb of Mr. Vij''s contention. It was argued that the appellant No. 2 M/s. Manmohan Auto Sales, Chandigarh had addressed communication to the respondent-consumer to bring the vehicle to their shop for any service or repairs. It was even argued to the logical length that the respondent in order to seek a redressal of manufacturing defect, had to come to the head-quarter at M/s. Enfield India Limited, which is at Madras. The submission was that since the respondent had not brought the vehicle to either Chandigarh or for that matter to Madras, the appellants obligation under the warranty would be extinguished.

10. YET again it appears to us that the aforesaid submission is devoid of any modi-cum of merit. On larger principle, it seems curious that the purchaser of Enfield-Bullet would have to make resort to Madras for enforcing the warranty under which the said vehicle is sold. It was conceded before us that the said vehicle is marketed under a categoric warranty for a period of six months or the running of 8000 Kms. whichever is earlier. The appellant''s claim that it is for the manufacturers to command the presence of the vehicle at the farthest point (e.g. Madras) for discharging its obligations is on the face of it unreasonable. However, apart from larger principle, the issue seems concluded against the appellant by the specific terms of the guarantee extended out with regard to the said vehicle. This inter-alia is in the following terms: "Our authorised dealers all over the country will help you to get that immaculate serviceafter-sales for your valuable "BULLET"."

11. IT is somewhat plain that the after sale service through the authorised dealers all over the country is the integral part of the warranty held out to the purchaser. Indeed without the same such a warranty would be a mere mirage and it can hardly be possible for the consumer to chase the same to the headquarter of the manufacturer at Madras. IT is obvious that a warranty and after-sale service for an automobile product is some time the very heart of the matter. To say that the same would be provided only at the head-quarters of the manufacturing concern or any other place which they may whimsically choose would be virtuly nullifying the terms of the warranty. IT is common ground here that one of the authorised dealer of M/s. Enfield India Limited was M/s. Shiva Automobiles at Yamunanagar, to which the respondent-consumer had been expressly referred by the first two appellants. Nor is it in doubt that the adress of the respondent-consumer N.P. Singh is also at Yamunanagar. IT would not, therefore, lie in their mouth now to turn round and say that the consumer was bound to produce his vehicle for replacement of parts or repairs or after sale service at any place of the appellant''s choice. In view of the above, in answer to the second question posed at the out-set, it has to be held that the obligation of conforming to the terms of the warranty rest primarily on the manufacturers through their authorised dealers in the field.

In fairness to Mr. Vij, we must also notice his fervent plea that the respondent-consumer had lost his right to redress because the possession of the motor vehicle was allegedly given or transferred to one Shri Rakhinder Singh Bhalla. IT was the case that there from, it should be inferred that the respondent had ceased to be the owner of the motor-cycle and consequently disentitled to claim any relief.

14.THE aforesaid submission has necessarily to be repelled both on the factual and the legal aspect. Firstly, there is no evidence worth the name far from the same being conclusive that the respondent had permanently parted possession of the vehicle in favour of Shri R.S. Bhalla. Indeed the appellant''s own stand in para No. 7 of the grounds of appeal is that their service Engineer had examined the motor-cycle in question in the presence of Shri R.S. Bhalla and Shri N.P. Singh when the said vehicle was inspected at Bhalla Textiles, Jagadhri Road, Yamunanagar. Consequently, the appellant''s own plea in the present appeal would belie their stand. Even otherwise, we are unable to see how the owner of a vehicle in entrusting the same to another for a while would in anyway divest himself of his right. However, on the legal side the matter is wholly concluded against the appellants. It is not in dispute that the registered owner of the said motorcycle was and continues to be Shri N.P. Singh. It was not even remotely the appellant''s case that any transfer of the vehicle had been duly incorporated in its certificate of registration. Once that is so, the case comes squarely within the ratio of the exhaustive order of this Commission in 1993 C.P.C. 479 ''Shr Ram Murti of Hisar v. THE Oriental Insurance Company, Hussar''. THErein, it has been categorically held as under: "To conclude on the legal aspect, the answer to the question posed at the very outset is rendered in the affirmative. It is held that Clause 30 of Section 2 of the Act lays down an inflexible presumption that a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, is its owner for the purposes of the insurance of the said vehicle against third party risks or comprehensively."

In view of the above, the last contention of the learned Counsel of the appellant must also fail.

16. FOR the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.