Sudden Car Breakdown Due To Defective Engine, Chandigarh State Commission Dismisses Appeal by Ford India

Brief Facts:

Mr Harshbir Singh Banga (“Complainant”) purchased a Ford Mustang GT-5.0L A/T Race Red Car from Rama Motors Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd. (“Dealer”). The vehicle broke down suddenly on 05.07.2020, causing a traffic jam, and the Complainant suffered a spinal injury while trying to push the car. The Complainant contacted Ford, but they arrived late on the spot and sent regular employees instead of technicians. The car was towed for inspection by Ford staff. Subsequently, Ford informed the Complainant via email that the engine needed replacement, without providing a reason for the sudden breakdown. The Complainant argued that replacing the engine would decrease the car's resale value and efficiency. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”).

Ford argued that the responsibility for after-sales service was with the Dealer as per their agreement. They claimed that the vehicle was driven recklessly, leading to the engine failure. However, they offered to replace the engine under warranty terms. The Dealer did not appear before the District Commission. The District Commission directed Ford and the Dealer to replace the car or refund Rs. 59 Lakh for the same. They were also directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- for litigation costs. Dissatisfied by the order, Ford filed an appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“State Commission”). The Complainant also filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation.

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission observed that the District Commission's order was appropriate and well-founded based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence. The bench rejected the arguments presented by Ford.

The State Commission noted that despite Ford's claims about the car's renowned quality, the fact that the engine failed after only 4000 kilometres contradicted these assertions. The State Commission agreed with the District Commission's observation that such a failure was contrary to Ford's reputation for quality and performance. They highlighted that replacing the engine amounted to a major repair, which was unexpected for a car of this calibre and price. The refusal of Ford to replace the vehicle or refund its cost was deemed unreasonable, especially considering the significant investment made by the Complainant.

Additionally, the State Commission rejected the argument that the Complainant's reckless driving caused the engine failure. They emphasized that such claims only reinforced the need for compensation and replacement of the defective car.

Regarding the enhancement of compensation sought by the Complainant, the State Commission determined that the awarded compensation adequately addressed the harassment and mental anguish suffered by the Complainant, along with the cost of proceedings. They asserted that consumer forums are not intended to excessively enrich consumers at the expense of service providers.

Ultimately, the State Commission dismissed the appeals and upheld the District Commission's decision.

Case Title: Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs Harshbir Singh Banga and Others

Case No.: Appeal No. A/22/2022

Advocate for the Appellant: Sh. Mrigank Sharma

Advocate for the Respondents: Sh. Ritesh Tomar for R1, R3 & R4; None for R2, R5 & R6 (Ex-parte).