Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds FCA India Automobiles And Its Dealer Liable For Selling Defective Car
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising C.T Sabu, President, Sreeja S, Member and Ram Mohan R, Member has held FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, its dealer and its service provider liable for selling a defective FIAT Linea T-Jet car to the complainant. Brief facts: On 30.09.2013, the complainant purchased a FIAT Linea T-Jet car from Hyson...
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising C.T Sabu, President, Sreeja S, Member and Ram Mohan R, Member has held FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, its dealer and its service provider liable for selling a defective FIAT Linea T-Jet car to the complainant.
Brief facts:
On 30.09.2013, the complainant purchased a FIAT Linea T-Jet car from Hyson Fiat, Thrissur (Opposite Party No. 1 – dealer), which was manufactured by FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 3 – manufacturer). Hyson Auto Sales (P) Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2) is the service provider.
On the date of delivery itself, the vehicle was found to have an improper fixture of the interior roof, which was rectified by the dealer on the same day. Thereafter, the complainant highlighted a series of defects in the vehicle, including a defective vehicle indicator and air conditioner, re-welding of the vehicle body, and replacement of the rear side actuator. Although the manufacturer arranged a meeting to address the issue of recurrent faults, the same did not yield any result due to the lack of participation by the manufacturer's executive.
Subsequently, the complainant got the vehicle inspected by an expert, who affirmed the existence of manufacturing defects. The expert also detected that the years of manufacture of some of the glasses of the vehicle differed from those of the others. A legal notice was issued by the complainant, which did not elicit any response. Consequently, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking replacement of the vehicle and appropriate compensation.
Submissions of the dealer and service provider:
It was submitted that the complaint was belatedly filed after a period of five years and was therefore not maintainable. It was contended that they could not be held liable since they were not the manufacturer of the vehicle. Although manufacturing defects were admitted in respect of the air conditioner, the breakage of the body welding, and the clutch pad, it was argued that these issues were duly attended to and that the manufacturer had provided proper care and service to the complainant.
It was further submitted that the complainant is a bank officer, well-educated, and had taken delivery of the vehicle after conducting a detailed examination and test drive, and only after satisfying himself with the particulars of the vehicle.
Submissions of the manufacturer:
It was submitted that the complaint is not maintainable, as the manufacturer sells vehicles through its authorized dealers with whom it bears a principal-to-principal relationship. It was contended that, after the sale of the vehicles, the manufacturer's contractual obligations are limited to the warranty terms, which are fulfilled through its authorized dealers. It was further submitted that the impugned vehicle was covered under warranty only for a period of three years, i.e., up to 08.11.2016.
It was further contended that, although the complainant approached the manufacturer on 01.12.2017, i.e., after the expiry of the warranty period, the manufacturer nevertheless offered to replace the tyres free of cost and to refund the amounts collected from the complainant.
Observations & Decision of the commission:
On the issue of maintainability, the Commission observed that whatever be the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealers, they are one and the same insofar as any claim made with respect to the quality and features of the product manufactured is concerned.
It was further observed that educational qualification and professional competence of an individual has no direct nexus with his ability to identify the defects, especially manufacturing defects. Since the imperfect fixture of the interior roof and its rectification was not denied by the opposite parties, it was deemed to be admitted. It was further observed that all other defects also appeared to be serious in nature.
The Commission placed reliance on the expert's report, which highlighted several defects in the vehicle that the service technicians of the opposite parties could not productively rectify. It was observed that the Expert Commissioner had logically arrived at the conclusion that the faults were attributable either to the vehicle having met with a collision prior to its sale or to poor build quality, including manufacturing defects. According to the Commission, the consistent and repetitive faults documented on record clearly indicated an inherent defect in the vehicle, of which the dealer had full knowledge.
The Commission also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Shailendra Bhatnagar, wherein the sale of a car with defective airbags entitled the consumer to replacement of the vehicle. It was held that the sale of a damaged or intrinsically defective vehicle to a consumer amounts to an unfair trade practice and constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Hence, the complaint was allowed with the following reliefs:
1. Refund of Rs. 7,80,330/-
2. Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, hardship and financial loss
3. Rs. 25,000/- as costs
Case Title: Dels Davis vs Hyson Fiat
Case Number: CC/229/2018
Date of Decision: 25.11.2025