In Brief
Vaz purchased a 2009-model car from a dealer in 2011, believing it to be a new 2011 model. The car had defects and had run 622 km. The lower consumer forums held the manufacturer jointly liable with the dealer for deficiency in service and ordered replacement or refund with 10% interest. The Supreme Court allowed the manufacturer's appeal, holding that without pleaded allegations or proof of the manufacturer's involvement in the misrepresentation, and given the principal-to-principal relationship between manufacturer and dealer, the manufacturer could not be liable. The Court found the consumer complaint contained no averment against the manufacturer and the dealer alone had possession and responsibility.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.