‘Either replace defective Ford Mustang or refund Rs 59 lakh with interest’

Banga alleged that the said vehicle suddenly broke down on July 5, 2020 in afternoon at Sector 7/8 roundabout, Chandigarh, when he was going for a ride. He told the commission that he was driving the car nearly at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour when it stopped working and came to a total halt. He called Ford India officials at the spot, and to his shock, no expert technician or engineer came to inspect the car. Ultimately, the car was towed, and the Ford India, vide email on July 18, 2020, informed him that the engine of the car requires replacement, and that Ford India have not assigned any reason as to why the engine of the car got suddenly seized, according to the complainant.

Banga said that if the engine of the car is replaced at such a period when it has covered only 4,000 kilometre, the resale value of the car would fall sharply and in no event can a replaced engine of the car carry the same efficiency and value to that of a newly built unit. He thus had moved to the district consumer commission against the Ford India and its dealership.

The Ford India and Rama Motor Sales and Services pleaded that the repair history showed that the vehicle was driven “rashly, dangerously and negligently” and the engine of the car also stopped working because it was being driven in a manner which is not ideal for driving, but despite this, Ford India was ready and willing to change the engine of the car within the terms of warranty.

The district commission, however, allowed the complaint of Banga, and had directed the Ford India Private Limited and the dealership Rama Motor Sales and Services private Limited, to either replace the Ford Mustang car with a new one or refund Rs 59 lakh, along with Rs 1 lakh compensation and Rs 15,000 litigation cost to Banga.

The Ford India and its dealership challenged the order before the State Consumer Commission of Chandigarh.

At state commission, the Ford India argued that the lower commission while passing the order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding, and also the order was passed in the absence of a manufacturing defect based on presumptions and assumptions.

The state commission, however, not impressed with the arguments of Ford India and its dealership, and said that the company has admitted in its reply that the subject vehicle being a legendary sports car in the world is not only known in India, but also globally for its manufacturing quality and precision, and also that the subject car is one of the most awarded sports car in the world, which is a testament to the fact that it is build in one of the most technologically advanced plants.

“To our mind, if the engine fails to perform the way it should, does it not constitute a fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality? Considering the same, the district commission, after taking into account the totality of facts and evidence placed before it, has rightly observed that the breakdown of the car in question just after completing only 4,000 kilometre, is totally contrary to the reputation of the car company and their claims about its unmatched quality and performance,” the state consumer dispute commission said.

On the argument of Ford India that they were ready to replace the engine of the subject vehicle at no cost to the complainant, the commission said that that the consumer spent a huge amount of Rs 59 lakh to buy the car in question. “We fail to fathom the reluctance of the appellants (Ford India) to replace the vehicle or refund the cost price thereof. Why should a consumer accept a repaired product after paying the full price for a new one? The district commission has thus rightly observed that even if the engine of the car is replaced with new one, the uncertainty about the efficiency and quality of the vehicle always remains in the mind of the complainant,” it added.

The state commission thus dismissed the appeals filed by Ford India and its dealership, and also dismissed the appeal filed by Banga, seeking enhancement of compensation amount.