1. First Appeal Nos. 119 and 154 of 2014 have been filed by Opposite Party No. 3, Narain Ford, and Opposite Party No. 1, Ford India Ltd., respectively, under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Complaint Case No. 54 of 2002, whereby the complaint was allowed.

2. Since the facts and questions of law involved are same, these two Appeals are disposed of with common order. The First Appeal No.119 of 2014 is taken as lead case.

3. The learned State Commission passed the following order:-

The Complaint of the complainant is allowed. The complainant is entitled to get from O.P. No.1 & 3 the amount of Rs.1,59,620/- which he has paid to the O.P. No.2 as price of the defective engine. He is also entitled for interest on the aforesaid amount @9% p.a. from 03-04-2002 the date of filing the complaint, till the date of payment together with Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony and further Rs.5,000/- on account of cost of litigation. The opposite party No.1 & 3 are directed to pay the aforesaid amounts to the complainant within one month. The liability of payment of the aforesaid by the O.P. No.1 & 3 is joint and several both.

4. As against which the present Appeals have been filed.

5. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for OPs that the Complainant purchased a Ford Icon Car from its dealer/OP-3 (Narain Ford) on 14.12.1999 being fully satisfied with its specifications and condition on delivery. About year later, on 11.11.2000 the car had met with an accident wherein the car as it hit a street dog and sustained an impact, which resulted in leakage of coolant from the radiator. The driver failed to notice the coolant leakage and gradual heating of the engine beyond the threshold and continued to drive the car without coolant system functioning. As a consequence of such negligence, the engine was subjected to overheating and consequential seizure. It is also noticed that the radiator gasket got burnt in the process. It is the specific contention of OP that the car design provides for a specific dashboard indication to driver pertaining to engine overheating. It was incumbent upon the driver to notice the gradual change in the engine temperature and take necessary steps to address the radiator coolant leakage. It was asserted that the radiator impact, leakage of coolant and consequential increase in temperature were the reasons for engine seizure. It was specifically asserted that, in such circumstances, the system design does not provide for fuel pump to be switched off automatically to bring the vehicle to halt. As per system design, such scope for stoppage of fuel pump is feasible only in the event of accident in a manner which results in fire, to prevent injuries to occupants and damage to the car due to fire. The State Commission failed to appreciate the inherent engine design that was accepted and voluntarily purchased by the Complainant, without calling for any expert evidence, which is absolutely necessary for clear appreciation. The instant order was passed, without even the Complainant discharging her basic liability of proving the deficiency in service, if any. It is also specific contention of OP that the matter entailed accident to the vehicle, due to which the warranty lapsed. Thus, it is the Complainant who is liable to pay towards servicing/repair charges for the accident. Since the vehicle is insured, she was at liberty to recover the accidental damage from the Insurer. The learned counsel for Ops contended that the Complainant failed to take basic precautions to stop the vehicle notwithstanding the specific indication with respect to engine overheating. Therefore, the OP has no liability with respect to damage and the State Commission order is perverse and liable to be set aside. He relied on Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 1999 AIR SCW 4221; Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., [(2010) 10 SCC 341]; Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala & Anr., (1994) 1, SCC 397 ; and Honda Cars Ltd. Vs. Sudesh Berry & Ors., (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1313) in support of his arguments.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Complainant argued that it has been specifically stated in the brochure that in the event of such impact to the car, it ought to have resulted in switching off of the fuel pump and thus, the vehicle would have come to a halt automatically. There is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Manufacturer wherein notwithstanding the severe impact to the vehicle, the fuel pump of the car continued to function resulting in continued running of the car and the engine seizure and the Complainant is put to severe hardship and financial loss. He argued that the entire issue has geneses to engine defect and thus the loss occasioned. The State Commission has gone into detailed evaluation of the matter and sought both the Appeals to be dismissed. He relied on Josh Philip Mumpili Vs. Premier Auto Mobiles Ltd. 2004 (1) SCR 1095; and Behari Kunj Sahakari Avas Samiti Vs. State of U.P. [(2008) 12 SCC 306] in support of his arguments.

7. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

8. It is undisputed that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from the OP-3 on 14.12.1999. It is an admitted portion that the vehicle had met with an accident on 11.11.2000 wherein the car had met with an accident with a street dog and sustained impact. It resulted in the leakage of coolant from the radiator. The driver, however, continued to drive the car which resulted radiator becoming empty, overheating of the engine and consequent engine seizure.

9. The main issue is, consequent to the impact with the street dog, whether the fuel pump of the car ought to have automatically got switched off, so as to stop the vehicle? In this regard, it is the specific contention of the Complainant that as per the brochure that was provided to her, on such impact it was incumbent of fuel pump of the car to be switched off to ensure safety of the car, which has not happened. Therefore, this constitutes specific deficiency in service by the manufacturer. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of the OP that there is no scope for fuel pump of the vehicle to be switched off. As per the design, such switching off of the fuel pump would occasion only in the likelihood of fire to prevent injuries to passengers and further damage to the car. The OP asserted that the car is adequately equipped with sensors to notify the driver about engine overheating and it was incumbent upon the driver to notice this and take necessary steps to cause the radiator to be refilled, which the complainant failed.

10. It is also not dispute that there was no expert opinion that has been brought on record. In this regard, Section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection, Act, 1986 reads as under:-

                   13. (1) Procedure on admission of complaint- (1) The District Forum shall, [on admission of a complaint] if it relates to any goods -

                   (c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum;

11. In the given circumstances, therefore, it has not been established that as per the design specifications of the car, the fuel pump ought to have automatically switched off. It is a matter of common knowledge that as a consequence of draining out of coolant from the radiator, the car engine would start heating up beyond normal temperature and such overheating of the engine is indicated on the dashboard to the driver. It was incumbent upon the driver to take necessary steps to take action to address the same. Apparently, this did not happen and the car was continued to be driven and engine seized due to overheating. Therefore, the order of the learned State Commission is evidently without due appreciation of facts.

12. The learned counsel for Complainant has also brought out that the decretal amount of Rs.1,59,620 along with interest accrued thereon deposited by OP before the State Commission in 2017 was withdrawn by the Complainant based on the order of the State Commission. He also states that the Complainant unfortunately passed away in the year 2021 and that her LRs have been brought on record. The learned counsel for manufacturer OP-3 (Narain Ford) fairly states that, in the given circumstances, the OP would not insist for any recovery of the amount if they succeed in the matter.

13. On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments advanced and the absence of any expert report, no deficiency in the service is established. Therefore, the State Commission order in CC No. 54 of 2002 dated 26.08.2013 is set aside and Appeal is allowed with above observations and OP's undertaking to not to seek recovery of the amount withdrawn by the Complainant.

14. With these directions, the First Appeal Nos.119 of 2014 and First Appeal No.154 of 2014 are disposed of.

15. All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.