Thiruvananthapuram:Kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission has ordered a foreign car manufacturer, its associate and dealer to refund Rs 28 lakh with 9% interest after they were found to have sold a luxury vehicle with faulty engine to the customer in 2011.Nissan Motors India Pvt Ltd, Hover Automotive India Pvt Ltd, the marketing and sales office of Nissan, and the authorized dealer EVM Automobiles Pvt Ltd in Kochi have been held jointly and severally liable for selling a faulty vehicle to Ettumanoor-based Jaison Lukose. The trio have also been directed to pay a compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh (with interest @ 9% for the mental agony and trouble he had to undergo by the actions of the opposite parties in supplying him a defective vehicle). The complainant is also entitled to Rs 50,000, the cost of litigation.
The complainant purchased a Nissan X-Trail SUV from the dealer on April 12, 2011 by paying Rs 28 lakh. However, the luxury vehicle broke down in the middle of the road multiple times soon after purchase. The dealer could not identify the reason for the breakdowns, which first happened hardly a week after purchase. It had run just 780km at that time. It broke down again after a month with a heavy thud from the engine. The vehicle had to be towed to the workshop on both occasions. But the company engineers could not identify the reason behind the abysmal performance of the vehicle.
The service engineers assured that the vehicle would run smoothly after it crosses 10,000km. But later, abnormal combustion operation was spotted. The opposite parties argued that they were ready to replace the engine, but the customer was not ready for the deal. “The vehicle in this case is one built and assembled in a fully-automated plant and imported to India as a fully-manufactured product. What is contemplated by the warranty can be construed only as referring to a part of the engine of the motor car and cannot encompass the engine as a whole. It is evident that the defect found in the engine was with respect to the synchronization of one of the cylinders with the other two…. the stand of the complainant in refusing to accept the replacement of the engine as a solution to his problems, cannot be found fault with. He is fully justified in being dissatisfied with the vehicle and insisting on a return of the amount paid by him as sale price of the vehicle,” said the commission order issued last week.