Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission: In a case where a bench of Sangita Dhingra Sehga, J. (President)* and Pinki (Member), was called upon to decide whether the opposite parties i.e. Manufacturer and Service Centre are liable for deficiency in service. The Commission while allowing the complaint opined that only Manufacturer was liable for the deficiency in services and consequently directed replacement of vehicle with a new vehicle or refund if replacement was unobtainable along with other relief.
Factual Background:
The complainant purchased a vehicle, namely a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, from an authorised dealer in 2021. The price paid by the complainant was approximately Rs. 70 lakhs, inclusive of accessories. Soon after the purchase, multiple defects emerged in the vehicle, such as water leakage, malfunctioning of the AC, failure of the reverse camera, auto-stop failure, engine and throttle issues, and unusual shaking of the vehicle at moderate speed.
The complainant visited service centres whenever the vehicle encountered mechanical or technical issues. Repairs were attempted at centres in Dehradun, Chandigarh, Delhi, and Ahmedabad; however, the problems persisted despite temporary fixes.
The complainant regularly visited the service centres of the opposite parties, sent several emails, and repeatedly requested the officials and executives of the opposite parties to carry out proper repairs of the vehicle. On all occasions, however, the matter was merely prolonged without resolution.
It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle is currently in such a condition that the main frame has been compromised. The accelerator and engine are not functioning properly, and during the rainy season, water enters through the roof. The roof of the car has been misaligned, which is clearly visible in the photographs, showing that the vehicle suffers from inherent defects that arise one after another.
The complainant submitted that even after replacement of vital components, the vehicle is still not in proper condition. The service centre has now telephonically informed the complainant that the vehicle requires replacement of the engine, silencer, and exhaust manifold. Lastly, the complainant has no hope that the vehicle in question can be repaired properly or made equivalent to other vehicles of the same make and category.
Points for Consideration :
1. Unrebutted testimony of the complainant
2. Liability for deficiency in service
3. Misjoinder of party
Analysis and Decision :
Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“State Commission”) observed that Opposite Party 1/Manufacturer has failed to file its written submissions and the right of the party to file its written submissions was closed hence, in view of the aforesaid the submissions of the complainant remain largely unrebutted. Therefore, in view of the unrebutted testimony of the complainant, the State Commission found no reason to discredit the submissions of the complainant against Opposite Party 1.
The State Commission further observed, that vehicle was neither manufactured nor sold by Opposite Party 2/ Service Centre and repairs carried out by Service Centre were under warranty and problems were resolved. Therefore, the State Commission found no deficiency in services that can be attributed to Service Centre. Hence, the State Commission held that the complaint against Opposite Party 2/ Service Centre suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder of parties under Order 1 Rule 9, CPC, 1908.
Relief granted
-
Replacement of vehicle with new vehicle of same make or refund of Rs. 69, 49, 522 in case replacement not doable.
-
Manufacturer to pay Rs. 4,00,000, to the complainant against bills and tax invoices as repairs, maintenance, spare part changes and services.
-
Manufacturer to pay Rs. 50,000, to the complainant as expenses for commutation due to rendering alternative courtesy vehicle.
-
Manufacturer to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment.
[Paawan Chaudhary v. Fiat India Automobiles (P) Ltd., CC No. 56 of 2023, decided on 12-0-2026]
*Order by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehga, President
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee and Ms. Harshita Rawat, Advocates for the complainant
Ms. Vidya Rai, Advocate for the Opposite Party 1 (Manufacturer)
None for the Opposite Party 2