Ramesh Anand vs Cocord Motors Ltd

THE complaint of the appellant seeking compensation for having been sold defective Indica Diesel Car of DLX model was dismissed merely on the premise that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and if there was such defect the same could have been ordered to be removed.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. We are sorry to point out that the appellant had visited the garage on more than 33 occasions for removing the defect and there are large number of job cards. Merely because there was no manufacturing defect does not mean that the vehicle sold was not defective. Manufacturing defect in a vehicle saddles the manufacturer with the liability of replacing the vehicle by new vehicle and if the vehicle has such defects that it is taken to the garage time and again such a vehicle comes within the definition of defective goods as defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or [under any contract, express or implied or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

THE circumstance of the appellant having taken the vehicle to the garage on such a large number of occasions was lost sight of by the District Forum while considering the question of loss or injury suffered by the appellant due to negligence of the respondent for selling such a vehicle.

CONSUMER purchases a vehicle for his convenience and not for headache or for miseries. In the modern day life if a consumer visits garage on such large number of occasions, it reflects the malady as he suffers immensely in terms of mental injury and harassment and loss in terms of extra expenses, inconvenience, etc. These are such considerations, which have to be taken into account by the Consumer Forum while dealing with the grievances and complaints of the consumers against such manufacturers, or service providers who force the consumer to visit them time and again because of their deficiency in service or defects in the goods. In the result we partly allow the appeal at the outset, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the District Forum for deciding it afresh in the light of the observations made by us. The District Forum shall dispose of the matter positively within three months.

THE appellant shall appear before the District Forum on 13.3.2006 for the aforesaid purpose.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.