The instant appeal challenges the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The facts were: the appellants were the manufacturers of “Honda City Cars”. One car was purchased by the respondent in the year 1999 and owned till 2010 when they met in an accident. The car was taken to the authorized service centre for repairs. Since the car was insured and, as such the surveyor of the insurance company found the estimated cost of repairs at the level of Rs.1,50,000/-.  The respondent filed a complaint against the appellant, dealer and the service centre filed a complaint alleging the deficiency. The matter was allowed by the District Forum and issued directions against the dealer and the authorised service centre. Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent preferred a first appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and a cross appeal was also preferred by the dealer and the authorized service centre. The State Consumer Commission  affirmed the view taken by the District Forum regarding the liability of the appellants that the manufacturing company could not be held liable since there was no claim of any manufacturing defect. Aggrieved by it, the respondents filed a revision before the National Commission. The National Commission discovered that the car had not been serviced for whatever reason, and the estimated cost of “repairs” was at an escalated rate. Considering the facts, the National Commission ordered the appellants to issue a brand new Honda City car to the Petitioners on payment of a nominal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. However, aggrieved by the fallen liability, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

The court after analysing the facts held that there isn't a shred of evidence that the disaster was caused by a manufacturing defect. By referring to the case, TATA Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Another, [2021 SCC Online SC 125], observed that 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 bench also held that the District Forum had rightly decided in passing directions to the dealer and authorised centre, making them liable for their deficiency and the National Commission was not justified in asking the appellant to provide a brand new vehicle as a “goodwill gesture”. Hence, the appeal is allowed. 

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals