Manufacturer cannot be held liable for deficiency in service on the part of the Authorized Service Centre or dealer

In Honda Cars India Limited Vs. Sudesh Berry & Ors., decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 12.11.2021.

Facts of the Case-

Appellant/Opposite Party No. 2 is the manufacturer of “Honda City Cars” and one such car was purchased by the Complainants No. 1 to 3 in 1999. In 2010, the car suffered damage in an accident and was taken to the Authorized Service Centre (ASC) for repairs. The ASC provided repair cost of Rs. 1,50,000/-, however, later the ASC substantially enhanced the repair charges to Rs. 2,40,000/-.

Aggrieved by the same, Complainants No. 1 to 3 filed a consumer complaint against the Appellant along with ASC and the dealer alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against them. The district forum did not find the Appellant liable for the conduct of ASC and the dealer as the Appellant only has principal to principal relationship with them, however, the Forum directed the ASC and Dealer to repair the said car on the initially agreed amount of Rs. 1,50,000 along with other reliefs. On an appeal by R 1-3, the SCDRC upheld the order of the District forum which was further challenged by R 1-3 before the National Commission.

The NCDRC moulded the relief given by District Forum and directed the Appellant to provide a brand-new Honda City car to the R 1-3 on payment of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs as a goodwill gesture and to recover the remaining amount from the original OP No. 3. Being aggrieved by the liability fastened by the Hon’ble NCDRC, the Appellant came in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Analysis and Findings of the Court-

The Hon’ble Court noted that there is not an iota of material on record which suggests that the accident occurred as a result of any manufacturing defect. Placing reliance on TATA Motors Ltd. Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Anr, 2021 SCC Online 125, the Court held that “if there is 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 Court therefore restored the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commissioner and set-side the direction of the National Commission.