Dealer And Manufacturer Jointly Responsible For Deficiency In Service When Vehicle Defects Persist During Warranty Period :Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar has dismissed the manufacturer’s appeal and affirmed the consumer commission’s direction to refund the vehicle price with costs, or alternatively replace the vehicle, holding the dealer and manufacturer jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. Drawing attention to the obligations arising under the warranty, the Bench held that when a defect in a vehicle is reported and persists during the warranty period, both the selling dealer and the manufacturer are responsible for deficiency in service. The dispute concerned a consumer who purchased a car that allegedly developed vibration in the first and reverse gears, which the authorised dealer did not rectify despite repeated efforts.
The dispute originated when a consumer purchased a motor vehicle manufactured by the petitioner company from its authorised dealer in May 2007. Soon after delivery, the consumer reported persistent vibration in the first and reverse gears. Despite repeated inspections and mechanical checks, the defect allegedly remained unresolved.
The consumer filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, initially against the dealer alone. During proceedings, the Commission found the report of the State Motor Garages ambiguous and directed that the manufacturer be impleaded to ensure opportunity of hearing if a manufacturing defect was established. The manufacturer submitted a report from its engineer asserting the vehicle was roadworthy, while the complainant produced a report from the Principal of Government Polytechnic College confirming vibration in the gears.
The Commission concluded that the defect persisted during the warranty period and directed refund of the purchase price or replacement of the vehicle. The manufacturer challenged this order, contending that no expert opinion from an accredited laboratory was obtained, that warranty terms were overlooked, and that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to implead the manufacturer. The complainant maintained that the defect was evident from the outset and that both dealer and manufacturer were liable under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Court recorded: “The appellant-manufacturer has advanced a two-fold submission: first, that there was no admissible or cogent material before the Commission to sustain a finding of manufacturing defect, especially in light of three reports certifying the vehicle as roadworthy; and second, that the Commission proceeded to pass the impugned order without formally impleading the manufacturer at the initial stage or allowing it to lead evidence, thereby causing prejudice.”
It was noted: “Per contra, the respondent-complainant supported the impugned order, contending that the record clearly demonstrates that the manufacturer had been afforded a hearing, and that the counsel for the dealer also represented the manufacturer.”
The Court referred to precedent: “In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra, AIR 2006 SC 1586, the Supreme Court held that if a defect is detected during the warranty period, the manufacturer is obliged to repair or replace the defective component, the law recognising an implied warranty that the vehicle is reasonably fit for its intended purpose.”
The Bench stated: “The Commission has recorded a categorical finding that the defect was noticed immediately after purchase and that between 2007 and 2009 the complainant repeatedly approached the dealer for rectification, but the problem persisted.” It was observed: “Once the defect is noticed within the warranty period, both dealer and manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.”
The Court recorded: “In AIR 2011 SC 523, the consumer had complained of persistent engine defects from the day of purchase. Although the vehicle had run 800 km, it had largely remained with the dealer for repairs. The Supreme Court upheld the award and held that if an independent expert confirmed inherent manufacturing defects, the consumer was entitled to a refund of the price and life tax along with interest.”
The Bench stated: “The contention that the Commission ignored the report of the State Motor Garages is untenable. The Commission found that the report of the Government Polytechnic, Srinagar, remained unrebutted.” It was further observed: “The argument that the Commission lacked authority to implead the manufacturer is also without merit. Once liability for deficiency in service is joint, the dealership relationship and warranty terms bind both.”
The Court concluded: “Having been notified and having inspected the vehicle through its engineer, the appellant ought to have taken steps to repair the vehicle or lead rebuttal evidence. Having chosen not to do so, it cannot allege denial of opportunity.”
The Court directed: “We accordingly find no reason to differ with the view taken by the Commission in the impugned order and find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by it. The findings are based on a sound appreciation of evidence and settled principles of consumer law. The manufacturer and the dealer failed to rectify the defect during the warranty period and are, therefore, liable.”
“Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. The appellant and the respondent-dealer are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award of the commission. Disposed of as such, a copy of the order shall be notified to the commission and in case there is any statutory deposit of award or otherwise same shall be remitted back to the commission accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Wahid Lone, Advocate and Ms. Safa Aziz, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M. A. Dar, Advocate
Case Title: Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Mohammad Ashraf Khan And Others
Case Number: MA No. 114/2015
Bench: Justice Sanjay Parihar, Justice Sanjeev Kumar
