Sale Of Inherently Defective Car Amounts To Unfair Trade Practice; Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds FCA India, Dealer Liable
Sangeetha Prathap
The Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., its authorised dealer and service provider liable for selling a defective FIAT Linea T-Jet car to the complainant, holding that the sale of a vehicle suffering from inherent defects amounts to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The Commission directed refund of the vehicle’s price along with compensation and costs.
The Bench comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member) and Ram Mohan R. (Member) was dealing with a consumer complaint filed by the purchaser of a FIAT Linea T-Jet car against Hyson Fiat, Thrissur (dealer), Hyson Auto Sales (P) Ltd. (service provider) and FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (manufacturer).
The complainant purchased the vehicle on September 30, 2013 from the authorised dealer at Thrissur. It was alleged that on the very date of delivery, the vehicle was found to have an improper fixture of the interior roof, which was rectified by the dealer on the same day. Thereafter, the complainant began experiencing a series of problems, including defects in the vehicle indicator and air conditioner, re-welding of the vehicle body, replacement of the rear side actuator and other recurring faults. Though the manufacturer later arranged a meeting to address the repeated complaints, the exercise did not yield any result due to the non-participation of the manufacturer’s executive.
As the issues persisted, the complainant got the vehicle inspected by an expert, who confirmed the existence of manufacturing defects. The expert also noted that the year of manufacture of some of the glasses fitted in the vehicle differed from that of the others. A legal notice issued by the complainant did not elicit any response, following which the present complaint was filed seeking replacement of the vehicle and compensation.
The dealer and service provider contested the complaint, primarily on the ground of limitation, contending that it had been filed after five years and was therefore not maintainable. They also argued that they could not be held liable as they were not the manufacturer of the vehicle. While admitting certain defects relating to the air conditioner, body welding and clutch pad, they contended that all issues had been attended to and that proper service had been provided. It was also argued that the complainant, being a well-educated bank officer, had taken delivery of the vehicle only after a detailed inspection and test drive.
The manufacturer contended that it sold vehicles only through authorised dealers on a principal-to-principal basis and that its obligations were confined to the warranty terms, which had expired on November 8, 2016. It was further submitted that even though the complainant approached the manufacturer after the expiry of the warranty period, it had still offered to replace the tyres free of cost and refund certain amounts collected from the complainant.
On the issue of maintainability, the Commission held that irrespective of the contractual relationship between the manufacturer and its dealers, they are to be treated as one entity so far as claims relating to the quality and features of the product are concerned. The Commission rejected the argument based on the complainant’s educational qualification, observing that professional competence has no nexus with the ability to identify manufacturing defects.
The Commission noted that the improper fixture of the interior roof on the date of delivery was not denied by the opposite parties and was therefore deemed to be admitted. It further found that the other defects complained of were serious in nature. Placing reliance on the expert report, the Commission observed that several defects could not be effectively rectified by the service technicians of the opposite parties. The expert had logically concluded that the faults were attributable either to a prior collision of the vehicle or to poor build quality, including manufacturing defects.
The Commission held that the consistent and repetitive defects recorded on file clearly established the existence of inherent defects in the vehicle, of which the dealer had full knowledge. It also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, wherein the sale of a car with defective airbags was held to entitle the consumer to replacement of the vehicle. The Commission observed that sale of a damaged or intrinsically defective vehicle amounts to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
In view of these findings, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund an amount of ₹7,80,330 to the complainant. It further awarded ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony, hardship and financial loss, along with ₹25,000 towards costs of the proceedings. Accordingly, FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., along with its dealer and service provider, were held jointly liable for selling a defective vehicle to the complainant.
Cause Title: Dels Davis vs Hyson Fiat
Case No: CC/229/2018
Coram: C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member), Ram Mohan R. (Member)
