Vehicle Manufacturer Cannot Be Held Liable For Deficiency In Service By Dealer/Authorized Service Centre In Repair : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a vehicle manufacturer cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle.In this case, the complainant purchased a 'Honda City' Car in the year 1999. In 2010, the car suffered damage in an accident and was taken to the authorized service centre for repairs....
The Supreme Court observed that a vehicle manufacturer cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle.
In this case, the complainant purchased a 'Honda City' Car in the year 1999. In 2010, the car suffered damage in an accident and was taken to the authorized service centre for repairs. Alleging deficiency on part of the Manufacturer as well as the dealer and the service centre, a complaint was filed before District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint but held that the manufacturer cannot be held liable since there was no claim that the vehicle had some manufacturing defect. This finding was affirmed by the State Commission (SCDRC). However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant and directed the manufacturer to provide a brand new Honda City car to the complainants on payment of a nominal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.
In appeal, the bench agreed with the submission made by the manufacturer that there is not an iota of material that the accident occurred as a result of any manufacturing defect.
If there be any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle, the manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable, the court said while referring to a recent judgment in TATA Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz.
The court observed that the District Forum was justified in making only the dealer and the authorized centre, liable for the deficiency on their part. "These findings were rightly affirmed by the State Commission and the National Commission ought not to have passed direction putting the burden on the appellant and asking the appellant to provide a brand new vehicle as a "goodwill gesture".", the court said while allowing the appeal.
Case name and Citation: Honda Cars India Limited vs Sudesh Berry | LL 2021 SC 649
Case no. and Date: SLP(C) 11986/2020 | 12 November 2021
Coram: Justices UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat
Counsel: Adv Jagdev Singh for petitioner
Click here to Read/Download Order