AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Shivam Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. against the order dated 23.4.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.FA/14/648.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant purchased a truck 709 from authorised dealer of Tata Motors Ltd., namely the petitioners. This vehicle was under warranty, however vehicle was not repaired by the petitioners and therefore, the consumer complaint was filed by respondent No.1/complainant on 31.01.2014 against the petitioners as well as against the manufacturing Company Tata Motors Limited. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing their respective written statements and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja, (in short 'the District Forum') dismissed the complaint finding no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant then preferred an appeal bearing No.FA/14/648 before the State Commission and the State Commission allowed the appeal as well as complaint by ordering the following vide its order dated 23.4.2015:-
"17. Consequent upon the above-said trial, present appeal made by complainant is allowed and impugned order dated 29.08.14 passed by the District Forum is set-aside and it is ordered that respondents No.1 & 2 would pay a sum of Rs.41,568/- to complainant within the period of one month from the date of order and would also pay interest on the above-said amount Rs.41,568/- at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 31.01.2014 till the full & final realization of the said amount. Respondent No.1 & 2 would pay Rs.5000/- to appellant/complainant against the cost of this appeal."
Hence the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are only the agent of the Principal Tata Motors Limited. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint against opposite party No.3, which is Tata Motors Limited as the State Commission has not found any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. However, the State Commission has fixed liability on the dealer opposite party Nos.1 &2 for repairing the vehicle and in lieu for the same paying the cost of Rs.41,568/-. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the warranty is granted by the manufacturer and the Tata Motors Limited in its written statement have clearly denied the applicability of warranty in the present case on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the complainant in maintaining the vehicle. Learned counsel referred to the following portion of the warranty:-
"5. This warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with our standard repair procedure, or by any person other than out sales or service establishments our authorised dealers or their sub-dealers or service centres in any way so as in our judgment which shall be final and binding to affect its reliability, nor shall it apply if in our opinion which shall be final and binding the vehicle or the part has been subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance and servicing or accident or loading in excess of the carrying capacity as certified by us or the services, prescribed in Operator's Service Book are not carried out at pour sales or service establishments our authorised dealers or their sub-dealers or service centres."
It was claimed by the learned counsel that the complainant did not avail three free services in time and therefore, there was lot of dust over the engine and according to warranty conditions, the warranty had ceased to exist. The dealer who is an agent of principal Tata Motors cannot take up the repairs under warranty when the principal has denied the operation of the warranty itself. In such situation the dealer is not responsible for repairs not done. It was further stated that even if there is any responsibility for repairing under the warranty, it will be on the principal/ manufacturer and they should be liable to bear the expenses of the repairs and not the dealer who is only an agent of the principal Tata Motors Ltd. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the following judgment:-
"Prem Nath Motors Limited Vs. Anurag Mittal, (2009) 16 SCC 274. It has been held that:-
Section 230 of the Contract Act categorically makes it clear that an agent is not liable for the acts of a disclosed principal subject to a contract to the contrary. No such contract to the contrary has been pleaded. ......."
On the basis of the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Commission has erred in finding deficiency on the part of the petitioners, whereas the principal/manufacturer has been left scot-free. If the warranty was not operative, the petitioners were not responsible to carry out the repairs without any payment from the complainant. Accordingly, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the petitioners and the State Commission erred in ordering compensation of Rs.41,568/- to be paid by the petitioners to the complainant.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant stated that his vehicle was well within warranty and there was no negligence on the part of the complainant in the regular maintenance of the vehicle, therefore, services were rightly claimed. However, the opposite parties disentitled the complainant from the benefit of the warranty. The deposit of dust over the engine cannot be termed as negligence on the part of the complainant. The State Commission has examined all the issues raised by the petitioners before this Commission and after examining all these issues, the State Commission has awarded Rs.41,568/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant. The complainant is not concerned whether the compensation is paid by the petitioners or by the manufacturer, Tata Motors Ltd.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Tata Motors Ltd. stated that State Commission has clearly held that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and therefore, no deficiency was found on the part of the manufacturer respondent No.2. Due to negligence in maintaining the vehicle properly on the part of the complainant, warranty already stood revoked in terms of the clause that has already been mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners. When there was no manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is not responsible for repair under warranty. Clearly, there is no deficiency on the part of the manufacturer and that is why the State Commission has dismissed the complaint against the manufacturer.
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. The State Commission has clearly found that there was no manufacturing defect. However there were certain defects, which were required to be rectified under the warranty. It is admitted by all the parties that vehicle was under the warranty. However, the petitioners did not repair the vehicle under the warranty. The manufacturer has also taken stand before the State Commission in its written statement that due to negligence of the complainant in maintaining the vehicle, the warranty stood revoked and therefore, repairs could not have been taken under the warranty. There has been some delay in getting the free services done. However, this does not imply that the complainant was negligent in maintenance of the vehicle resulting in revoking of the warranty.
The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are not responsible for any deficiency as they were only the agent of the principal, Tata Motors Ltd. I agree with the point raised by the petitioners that the warranty has been issued by the Tata Motors Ltd. and they are responsible for allowing repairs under the warranty. The State Commission has ordered for payment of repairs keeping in view the operation of the warranty clause. However, the State Commission erred in totally exonerating Tata Motors from their liability under warranty. Clearly, the dismissal of the complaint against the manufacturer Tata Motors Ltd is justified only to the extent that the State Commission has not found any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. However, so far as the warranty is concerned, the manufacturer Tata Motors Ltd is equally responsible as the petitioners. The petitioners had not filed agreement between them and the manufacturer, hence, it is not known what type of relationship the petitioners had with the Tata Motors. In practice, it is the dealer who repairs the vehicle under the warranty and then settles claim with the manufacturer under terms of their agreement. In this case, the petitioners refused to repair the vehicle under the warranty and therefore, they are equally liable for dishonouring the warranty.
Based on the above discussion, the revision petition No.2055 of 2015 is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified only to the extent that the petitioners along with respondent No.2/Opposite Party no.3 Tata Motors Ltd shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.41,568/- along with interest and compensation as ordered by the State Commission. With this modification the order of the State Commission is confirmed.