Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Closes Controversy, Directs Ford India to Pay Rs. 36.87 Lakhs in Defective Vehicle Case

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India put an end to a long-standing dispute between Ford India Private Limited and Medical Elaborate Concept Private Limited & Ors. The Court directed Ford India to pay Rs. 36.87 lakhs to the first respondent, minus the amount already deposited with the State Commission, in a case concerning a defective Ford Titanium Endeavour 3.4L vehicle.

The Court stated in Its order, “Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and it being an admitted fact that the vehicle had some manufacturing defects and despite replacement of the engine, the vehicle has been alleged to be not roadworthy, we deem it appropriate to close the controversy and dispose of this appeal.”

The controversy began when the first respondent purchased the vehicle from Ford India’s authorized dealer and subsequently faced various issues, including oil leakage. The State Commission accepted the complaint and ordered the replacement of the engine, as well as a daily compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. However, even after the engine replacement, the vehicle was still plagued with problems, rendering it unsuitable for driving.

During the proceedings, the Court explored the possibility of an amicable settlement but was unable to reach an agreement. Consequently, the Court issued directions, requiring Ford India to pay the balance amount of Rs. 36 lakhs within two weeks. Additionally, Ford India was directed to reimburse the first respondent Rs. 87,000/- towards the insurance of the vehicle.

The Court's judgment also specified that upon receipt of the aforementioned amounts, the first respondent would hand over the vehicle to Ford India, effectively transferring ownership. Furthermore, the attachment orders passed by the State Commission were set aside, and all pending proceedings between the parties were deemed terminated.

This judgment by the Supreme Court provides a significant resolution to the dispute, ensuring compensation for the defective vehicle and bringing closure to the protracted legal battle.

Date of Decision:5th July, 2023

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED  vs M/S. MEDICAL ELEBORATE CONCEPT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/05-jul-2023-Ford-India-Pvt-Ltd-v.-MS.-MEDICAL-ELEBORATE-CONCEPT-PRIVATE-LIMITED-^0-ORS^.pdf"]

Latest Legal News