Supreme Court directs Ford India to pay 42 lakhs to the owner of Ford Titanium Endeavour for a Manufacturing Defect in the car.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4192­-4194/2023

(@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  Nos.21192­21194/2022)                         

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED                                                                                                                                                                                       Appellant (s)                                

 VERSUS

M/S. MEDICAL ELEBORATE CONCEPT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 17­08­2022, 12­10­2022 and 11­11­2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh, Punjab has been broadly upheld.

3. The  controversy  pertains  to  a  Ford  Titanium  Endeavour  3.4L vehicle  purchased  by  the  first  respondent  from  the  appellant’s company through one of its authorized dealers, namely, Respondent No.2 – M/s. A.B. Motors Private Limited. The first Respondent filed a  consumer  complaint  before  the  State  Commission  pointin out various defects in the vehicle including oil leakage from the very beginning. The State Commission accepted the complaint of the first Respondent and issued various directions to the appellant herein, including free of cost  replacement  of  the  engine  and  to  pay Rs.2,000/­ per day. The appellant challenged the above­stated order before the National Commission and vide impugned orders, the said 2 Commission has declined to interfere with the orders passed by the State Commission.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

5. Previously  also,  on  various  dates,  learned  counsel  for  the parties were heard and possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute was explored. Meanwhile, the appellant replaced the engine of  the  vehicle  but  unfortunately  even  after  replacement,  it  is averred by the first Respondent that there were numerous problems with the vehicle and they are unable to drive it smoothly.

6. Taking  into  consideration  the  totality  of  the  circumstances and  it  being  an  admitted  fact  that  the  vehicle  had  some manufacturing defects and despite replacement of the engine, the vehicle  has  been  alleged  to  be  not  road  worthy,  we  deem  it appropriate  to  close  the  controversy  and  dispose  of  this  appeal with the following directions :­ (i)  the  appellant  is  directed  to  pay  a  sum  of Rs.42,00,000/­ (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs only) to the first respondent minus Rs.6,00,000/­ which were deposited prior with the State Commission, and have since been released to the first respondent. In this manner, the appellant shall be  required  to  pay  the  balance  amount  of  Rs.36,00,000/­ which shall be paid within two weeks from today; (ii)  in  addition  to  the  amount  of  Rs.36,00,000/­  as directed  above,  the  appellant  shall  also  pay  a  sum  of 3 Rs.87,000/­  towards  insurance  of  the  vehicle  which  the first respondent has already paid to the insurance company. Resultantly, the insurance cover shall remain valid for the duration for which the policy has been purchased; (iii)  on  receipt  of  amount  of  Rs.36,87,000/­  from  the appellant,  the  first  respondent  shall  hand­over  the subject­vehicle to the appellant and the said vehicle shall be the property of the appellant ­ company for all intents and purposes;  (iv)  upon  payment  of  the  above­stated  amounts  by  the appellant,  the  attachment  orders  passed  by  the  State Commission shall stand set  aside  and all  the proceedings pending between the parties shall be deemed to have been terminated.

7. The appeals are disposed of in above­terms.

.................J (SURYA KANT)

.................J  (DIPANKAR DATTA)

NEW DELHI;  5TH JULY, 2023.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.21192­21194/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11­11­2022 in MA No. 355/2022 in MA No. 287/2022 in FA No. 169/2019,   order dated 12­10­2022 in MA No. 287/2022 in FA No. 169/2019 and order dated 17­08­2022 in FA No. 169/2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi)

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED                                                                                                                                                                                                         Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

M/S. MEDICAL ELEBORATE CONCEPT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 75619/2023 ­ PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES,IA No. 67358/2023 ­ PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 22999/2023 ­ PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 22874/2023 ­ PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/ FACTS/ANNEXURES,IA No.184075/2022 PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES & IA No. 179006/2022 ­ PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 05­07­2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :  

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

For Petitioner(s)  

Mr. A. Karthik, AOR

Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv.

Mr. Sukrit R Kapoor, Adv.

Ms. Shailja Singh, Adv.

Ms. Ritika Meena, Adv.  

For Respondent(s)  

Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Adv.

Mr. Manikya Khanna, Adv.

Mr. Anand Chichra, Adv.

Ms. Shruti Venugopal, Adv.

Mr. Devanshu Aggarwal, Adv.

Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, AOR  

Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR  

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals are disposed of, in terms of the signed Order.

3. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(VISHAL ANAND)
ASTT. REGISTRAR­cum­PS

(PREETHI T.C.)
COURT MASTER (NSH)