Skip to main content

'Defect', 'Manufacturing Defect' and duty of the manufacturer to the consumer defined

In Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Dr. Koneru Satya Kishre & Ors, the NCDRC held that whether the defects pointed out in the vehicle come under the category of manufacturing defect or not, the matter has been considered by this Commission in a number of cases, and it has been held that a 'defect' in a vehicle may come under the category of 'manufacturing defect' or otherwise, a vehicle is said to be suffering from 'defect', if there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which was required to be maintained under any law in force.  We are supported in this view in an earlier judgment of this Commission, delivered in, Revision Petition No. 7/2013, Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sunanda Sangwan, decided on 20.09.2013. Although the petitioner/manufacturer has taken the plea that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect and hence, they had no liability in the matter, but considering the view taken in the orders quoted above, it is very clear that the vehicle did suffer from 'defects', as it had to be taken to the workshop of the dealer from time to time.

 It would be seen from above that whether the 'defect' in the vehicle qualified to be called a 'manufacturing defect' or not, it was the duty of the opposite parties to take steps to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to the complainants in a road-worthy condition.  From the facts and circumstances on record, it is made out that the petitioner/OP-2 failed in the task to provide the vehicle in a road-worthy condition to the complainants and would therefore have to compensate the complainants.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more