- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Directs Ford India to Pay Rs. 42 lakhs To Owner of Ford Titanium Endeavour over Manufacturing Defect in Car
Supreme Court Directs Ford India to Pay Rs. 42 lakhs To Owner of Ford Titanium Endeavour over Manufacturing Defect in Car
The Supreme Court coram comprising of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta directed Ford India Ltd. to pay Rs. 42 lakhs as compensation to a consumer who purchased a car which had manufacturing defects.
The issue was related to a Ford Titanium Endeavour 3.4L owned by the consumer.
The owner had filed a consumer complaint before the Punjab State Consumer Commission wherein he critically pointed out various defects, including oil leakage from the very beginning of the use of the car.
Thereafter, the State Commission ordered the company to replace the engine free of cost and pay 2,000 rupees per day. The National Commission also affirmed this order, following which Ford India appealed to the Supreme Court.
During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, Ford replaced the engine of the car. However, even after the engine replacement, the car was not roadworthy. The owner vehemently asserted that there were numerous problems in the vehicle which makes smooth driving difficult.
While noting the facts and submissions of the case, the bench appositely directed Ford to pay Rs. 42 lakhs to the owner. Since Rs.6 lakhs was already paid by the company following the orders of the State Commission, Ford was required to pay the remaining Rs.36 lakhs.
In addition, the Company was ordered to pay Rs. 87,000 towards the insurance of the vehicle.
On receipt the amount i.e., Rs 36,87,000, the owner was directed to hand over the vehicle to the company.