When Defect Is Noticed Within Warranty Period, Both Dealer Manufacturer Are Jointly Liable For Deficiency In Service: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a Vehicle Authorised dealer acts on behalf of the manufacturer for maintenance and service. So, if the defect is noticed within the warranty period, both dealer and manufacturer are jointly liable for the deficiency in service.

The complaint was instituted while the vehicle was still within the warranty period. The vehicle, purchased in 2007, is alleged to have exhibited persistent vibration until 2009, after which it remained in the custody of the dealer. Although the appellant was allowed to contest the complaint and examine the vehicle, its engineer stated that the vehicle was roadworthy and that any manufacturing defect had been rectified. In contrast, the report of the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, who conducted a physical inspection, confirmed that the vehicle vibrated in the first and reverse gears, thereby indicating a manufacturing defect.

Upon weighing the evidence, the Commission held that although the dealer and manufacturer relied on the reports of the Director, State Motor Garages, and the Area Sales Manager to demonstrate roadworthiness, this material was contradicted by the evidence adduced by the complainant. The record established that the vehicle had been repeatedly taken to the workshop for repairs from the very outset, yet the vibration persisted, demonstrating a clear manufacturing defect. Since 2009,the vehicle had remained with the dealer without any effective effort to repair or replace it.

The Commission accordingly held the complainant entitled to relief and directed both the dealer and the manufacturer to refund ₹7,00,000/- along with ₹5,000/- towards litigation expenses, while retaining possession of the vehicle.

The manufacturer has advanced a two-fold submission: first, that there was no admissible or cogent material before the Commission to sustain a finding of manufacturing defect, especially in light of three reports certifying the vehicle as roadworthy; and second, that the Commission proceeded to pass the impugned order without formally impleading the manufacturer at the initial stage or allowing it to lead evidence, thereby causing prejudice.

The Division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that, “The dealer acts on behalf of the manufacturer for maintenance and service. It is not the appellant’s case that the defect surfaced after expiry of the warranty. Once the defect is noticed within the warranty period, both dealer and manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.”

Furthermore, while dismissing the appeal stated that, “We accordingly find no reason to differ with the view taken by the Commission in the impugned order and find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by it. The findings are based on a sound appreciation of evidence and settled principles of consumer law. The manufacturer and the dealer failed to rectify the defect during the warranty period and are, therefore, liable.”

Advocate R. A. Jan appeared for the Appellant, and Advocate M. A. Dar appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Purchaser of the vehicle filed a complaint after buying an SX-4 motor car manufactured by the appellant from an authorised dealer. After delivery, the complainant allegedly noticed persistent vibration in the first and reverse gears, which the dealer is said to have failed to rectify despite repeated inspections and mechanical checks. The defect was noticed immediately after purchase, and between 2007 and 2009, the complainant repeatedly approached the dealer for rectification, but the problem persisted.

Cause Title: Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Mohammad Ashraf Khan & Others (MA No. 114/2015)

Appearance:

Appellant Advocate R. A. Jan, Advocate Wahid Lone, and Advocate Safa Aziz.

Respondent Advocate M. A. Dar and Advocate Javaid Ahmad.

Click here to read/download the Judgment