|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether it is a tractor or a car, a motorbike or an autorickshaw, when a consumer buys a new vehicle, the expectation is that it would give trouble-free service. This is not an unreasonable expectation. However, when such hopes are belied and the vehicle becomes a source of irritation on account of manufacturing defects, it is only fair that the manufacturer should replace the defective vehicle, or if by then the consumer has lost confidence in that particular brand or model, refund the cost of the vehicle. Unfortunately, despite several apex consumer court rulings to this effect, manufacturers do not seem to have nderstood the rights of the consumers or the responsibilities of the manufacturers vis-`E0-vis defective vehicles. In the case of Vinoo Bhagat vs General Motors the court laid down certain clear criteria for replacement of a defective car: (a) If the car is defective and its use is substantially impaired, a consumer can seek replacement; (b) When reasonable opportunity had been given to the respondents (manufacturers/ service centres) to repair the car and yet there is a failure, it would certainly be a case for refund or replacement. The case pertained to a defective Opel Astra. Then in the case of A.Raja Rao vs M/s Mysore Auto Agencies, the court expressed displeasure at automobile manufacturers who persisted in repairing a new, defective vehicle, instead of giving refund or a defect-free replacement. Said the commission in this case, pertaining to a defect in a Swaraj Mazda light commercial vehicle: "It is regrettable that we have developed a tendency not to replace the defective vehicles". In the case of M/S Hyundai Motors India vs M/S Affiliated East West Press (Revision petition no 958 of 2007, decided on November 29, 2007), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has gone one step further and held that where a consumer experiences problems with a vehicle just a couple of months from the date of purchase, and the manufacturer is unable to rectify them, even if those problems are not major, the manufacturer has to give a replacement or a refund. It has also deplored in this order the tendency of manufacturers to indulge in protracted litigation instead of accepting that there are defects in a particular vehicle and offering the dissatisfied consumer a new replacement or a refund. It is pertinent to quote the apex court here:" Unfortunately, we have developed the practice or tendency of not admitting the defects in the vehicle and not replacing the same without contest. In other countries defective vehicles are easily replaced. That practice is required to be adopted, at least, by big companies like the petitioner herein. Instead of disputing the undisputed facts, the companies should resolve the matter by replacing the vehicles." Said the court further: "In our view, if a brand new car gives trouble within a few days of its purchase, the consumer would be dissatisfied. Further, in such cases, the manufacturing company is not justified in protracting litigation, merely because it has the money power. Further, a person who purchases a vehicle, maybe a luxury Accent car or a small car, would not be satisfied if it is a defective vehicle. The defect may not be a major one but the consumer loses satisfaction of having a new car. That loss of satisfaction would be much more in a case when the person buys the vehicle with his hard-earned money." The complaint in this case revolved around a Hyundai Accent (diesel), purchased by the consumer. While the district forum directed the manufacturer to provide a defect-free vehicle to the consumer and pay Rs 10,000 as compensation, the state commission modified it and said the manufacturer shall refund the entire cost of the vehicle—Rs 6,59,783—and also pay Rs 25,000 as compensation. Challenging this before the apex court, the manufacturer argued that there were no serious manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Disagreeing with such a contention and upholding the order of the state commission, the court observed: ‘’Undisputedly, a brand new car was required to be repaired repeatedly and the opposite parties are not in a position to a find solution to control emission of white/black smoke.’’ Observed the commission further:’’ Maybe such defects may occur in one out of 1000 vehicles but, at the same time, it is the duty of the reputed/established manufacturer to replace such a vehicle.’’ It's time vehicle manufacturers took note of these observations and acted on them.
|
||
|
|
||
