pune a vehicle manufacturer cannot be held liable for deficient service rendered by its authorized dealer considering the basis of principaltoprincipal transaction between the dealer and the buyer the pune district consumer disputes redressal forum has ruled a threemember bench of the forum headed by its president v p utpat partly allowed the complaint by kothrud resident shashikant k sane while ordering vehicle dealer pandit automotives private limited at tilak road here to pay rs 15000 damages towards physical and mental agony caused to the complainant on account of frequent faults in a newly purchased suv the forum however dismissed sanes plea for directions to the vehicle manufacturer tata motors limited to either refund over rs 707 lakh vehicle purchase price or replace the same with a new one to make up for the defects in the suv the complainant has placed no expert report before the forum to show that the suv had any manufacturing defects nor there is any documentary evidence to show that the vehicle is not in a running condition the forum observed while ruling out refund or replacement of the vehicle the forum did acknowledge the troubles sane went through from the stage of accepting delivery of the suv to frequently taking it to the service centre for repairs the dealer is liable for deficient service on this count the bench ruled while ordering damages which are to be paid within six weeks from july 9 when the order was passed sane had purchased a sumo gold x suv from pandit automotives by making full payment of over rs 707 lakh on july 18 2012 however during the time of delivery on july 27 2012 he found that the glove compartment lock and the right front door were not functioning properly and there was a huge crack on the wind shield metal portion on july 30 2012 sane requested the dealer to replace the vehicle but the latter convinced him against the same by pointing out that the suv was already registered in his name and the faults can be repaired on august 11 2012 the dealer informed sane that he can collect the vehicle as it had been repaired and was faultfree however after driving 50km the vehicle started showing engine check alert gave frequent hiccups and problems in operation of wipers prompting sane to take it back to the authorized service centre a problem was detected and was rectified however once again after driving another 100km the vehicle had problems in the brake setting sane later moved a consumer complaint against pandit automotives and tata motors seeking refund or replacement of vehicle besides rs 50000 compensation and rs 2000 cost both the dealer and the manufacturer opposed the plaint and said that sane had taken the vehicle after recording his full satisfaction and he was given the operators manual that specified warranties for different spare parts and also handling instructions they argued that sane did not furnish any evidence to show that the