K S K MOHAMMED Vs. MOHANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. THIS appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in O. P. No.82/99. The ground of attack made against the impugned order making the appellant who is the dealer also liable by the Forum below is that after having recorded a finding to the effect that the vehicle in question suffered from manufacturing defect the Forum below was not justified in making the appellant also liable and the order is not sustainable on that ground as against the appellant.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents/complainants submitted before us that the Forum below passed the order making the dealer also liable on the ground that in the delivery note given to the complainants/1st and 2nd respondents by the appellant it is stated that the vehicle and accessories were in good condition at the time of delivery and on that ground the Counsel argued vehemently that the dealer is also liable.

(3.) We find no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents/complainants in view of the legal position laid down by the Apex Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Anr. V/s. N. Sivakumar and Anr., 2000 10 SCC 654. Apex Court maintained the following observation made by the National Commission : "we make it clear that for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable. The liability must be borne by the manufacturer. "