CONSUMER RIGHTS
Faulty vehicle can be replaced
Pushpa Girimaji

THE apex consumer court has once again upheld the right of the consumer to get a refund against a defective automobile. Expressing displeasure at automobile manufacturers who persist in repairing a new, defective vehicle, instead of giving a refund or a defect-free replacement, the highest consumer court in the country observed in a recent order: "It is regrettable that we have developed a tendency not to replace the defective vehicles".

Referring to automobile advertisements that heighten consumer expectations about quality and after-sales service, the apex consumer court said the frustration of a consumer would be all the more if the quality was not in line with the promises made. In fact in such circumstances, a consumer would be deprived of the mental satisfaction of having bought a new vehicle, the apex consumer court remarked.

Holding both the dealer and the manufacturer liable for selling a defective vehicle, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had earlier dismissed the consumer’s plea for a refund. It directed the dealer and the manufacturer to refund the cost of the vehicle, being Rs 3,68,729, along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per anum, calculated from the date of purchase of the vehicle. And the amount should be paid within eight weeks from the date of the order, the commission said. It also awarded Rs 10,000 as costs to the complainant.

The consumer or the appellant, Mr Raja Rao’s contention before the commission was that soon after purchasing a Swaraj Mazda light commercial vehicle in 1993, he was forced to take it for repairs to rectify the problem of poor pick up and emission of white fumes. When the defects could not be rectified even after repairs, he got the engine checked with another authorised dealer of the manufacturer, who opined that the problem arose on account of diesel getting mixed with engine oil. When subsequent repairs also turned out to be unsatisfactory, the consumer returned the vehicle to the dealer, demanding a new vehicle.

But neither the dealer nor the manufacturer responded positively to this demand, forcing Mr Raja Rao to issue a legal notice asking for a replacement or a refund. Eventually, he knocked at the doors of the state commission seeking its intervention. However when the state commission dismissed his complaint, he was forced to file an appeal before the national commission.

The dealer and the manufacturer, in their reply to the commission argued that the consumer used the vehicle for carrying more weight than advised (5 tonnes of jaggery instead of the maximum of 3-3.5 tonnes recommended) used adulterated fuel, used the vehicle without repairs. Yet, they had repaired the vehicle and provided even an extended warranty, but the consumer had returned the vehicle, demanding a replacement, which was unreasonable.

The national commission, in deciding the case in favour of the consumer, went by the report of the commissioner (or the expert) appointed by the state commission, which said that (a) if the diesel and the engine oil were getting mixed up as noted by the dealer, there was a serious defect in the engine. The commission also referred to the report that said that the dealer was using the vehicle returned by the consumer after replacing several parts in the engine, including the cylinder liner, piston rings and injection nozzle. This only confirmed that the vehicle was defective, the commission said.

Said the commission: "It is shameful that even though the vehicle was defective, respondents (the dealer and the manufacturer) failed to acknowledge the defects. And, thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 (the dealer) used the vehicle for years together without acknowledging the defects and litigating the matter for years together. The Appellant suffered not only monetary loss but mental agony all throughout. It is regrettable that we have developed a tendency not to replace the defective vehicles". (A.RajaRao vs M/S Mysore Auto Agencies, First Appeal no 455 of 1997)

The Consumer Protection Act, while describing the relief that can be granted to a consumer against a defective product, provides for either its replacement with a defect-free product or a refund. It also provides for compensation for any suffering or loss undergone as a result of such defect. Yet, dealers and manufacturers do not respect this right of the consumer to a defect-free product, thereby forcing the consumer to seek the help of the consumer court. At least this order of the highest consumer court in the country should remind manufacturers and dealers about their responsibilities vis-`E0-vis defective goods.

HOME