Consumer Protection: Delay in Availing Free Services doesn’t Imply Negligence resulting in Revocation of Warranty


November 26, 2018

Case name: Shivam Motors Private Limited & Anr. v. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari & Anr.

Brief Facts of the case: The petition has been filed against order passed by State Dispute Redressal Commission, whereby State Commission has dismissed the complaint against Tata Motors Limited as the State Commission didn’t find any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. However, the State Commission has fixed liability on the dealer i.e. Shivam Motors Private Limited (Petitioners in the present case) for repairing the vehicle and paying compensation for the same.


The Petitioners have contended that they are only the agent of the Principal i.e. Tata Motors Limited and that the warranty is granted by the manufacturer and the Tata Motors Limited in its written statement have denied the applicability of warranty in the present case on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the complainant in maintaining the vehicle.


  • The National Commission Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) noted that though there was no manufacturing defect. However there were certain defects, which were required to be rectified under the warranty. It is admitted by all the parties that vehicle was under the warranty. However, the petitioners did not repair the vehicle under the warranty. The manufacturer has also stated that due to negligence of the complainant in maintaining the vehicle, the warranty stood revoked and therefore, repairs could not have been taken under the warranty. There has been some delay in getting the free services done. However, this does not imply that the complainant was negligent in maintenance of the vehicle resulting in revoking of the warranty.
  • That the warranty has been issued by the Tata Motors and they are responsible for allowing repairs under the warranty. The NCDRC also condemned the action of the State Commission in totally exonerating Tata Motors from their liability under warranty.
  • Thus, the Commission was of the view that so far as the warranty is concerned, the manufacturer Tata Motors is equally responsible as the petitioners.
  • The Commission additionally also noted that in practice it is the dealer who repairs the vehicle under the warranty and then settles claim with the manufacturer under terms of their agreement.

In view of the aforesaid observations, the Commission held that Tata Motors shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Complainant.

The entire case can be accessed here.