A manufacturing defect occurs within one month after the delivery of the Tesla Car.
Mr Roshan sent a Legal Notice to Mr Musk seeking and explaining all the facts, also
acknowledged with the car's invoice for acknowledging a refund for ₹78.15 lakhs or
replacement of the vehicle as per the Warranty and Service Record booklet
Agreement, which stipulates [clarify the terms of the warranty agreement]. The legal
notice detailed the manufacturing defect, the warranty agreement, and the request
for a refund or replacement. However, the defendant denied replying and paying a
refund or replacement car to Mr Roshan. Hence this suit.
Mr Musk, a car dealer, sold a car to Mr Roshan with a one-year warranty. However,
within a month of purchase, the car developed engine problems. Despite Mr
Roshan's complaints and a mechanic's diagnosis of a manufacturing defect, Mr Musk
refused to accept responsibility, claiming the issues were due to normal wear and
tear. This refusal not only led to a legal dispute but also caused a significant financial
loss to Mr Roshan. Mr Musk disregarded Mr Roshan's legal notice demanding a
refund or replacement, leaving Mr Roshan no choice but to file a lawsuit for breach
of contract, seeking a refund and compensation for the inconvenience caused by the
defective car. Mr Roshan argues that the warranty was misleading and Mr Musk is
liable for the faulty product.
A manufacturing defect occurs within one month after the delivery of the Tesla
Car. Mr Roshan sent a Legal Notice to Mr Musk seeking and explaining all the
facts, also acknowledged with the car's invoice for acknowledging a refund for
₹78.15 lakhs or replacement of the vehicle as per the Warranty and Service
Record booklet Agreement. The legal notice detailed the manufacturing defect,
the warranty agreement, and the request for a refund or replacement. However,
the defendant denied replying and paying a refund or replacement car to Mr
Roshan. Hence this suit
The cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.M
r. Roshan's cause of action against Mr Musk arises from the breach of an implied
warranty of merchantability. Mr. Roshan, having purchased a car from Mr. Musk,
expected it to be of merchantable quality and fit for its ordinary purpose. However,
the vehicle exhibited a manufacturing defect within a month of purchase, rendering
it unfit. Despite Mr Roshan's attempts to resolve the issue through communication
and legal notice, Mr Musk refused to acknowledge the defect or provide a remedy.
Mr Roshan's legal notice constitutes a breach of the warranty contract. Refund for
the car and compensation for the inconvenience caused by the defective vehicle,
arguing that Mr Musk is liable for the faulty product and that the warranty provided
was misleading. This breach of the implied warranty entitles Mr Roshan to seek
remedies.
The City Civil Court in Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain Mr Roshan's case
against Mr Musk due to the significant inconvenience and loss suffered by Mr
Roshan in Mumbai. Under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), jurisdiction lies
where the cause of action arises. While the contract was formed in Delhi, the car was
delivered to and used by Mr Roshan in Mumbai, where he experienced engine
problems and suffered the inconvenience. This significant part of the cause of action,
namely the breach of warranty and the consequential losses, occurred in Mumbai,
giving the City Civil Court jurisdiction to hear the case for the value of ₹50 lakhs or
more under the senior division bench. According to the Bombay City Civil Court
(Amendment) Act, 2023, This legislation has increased the pecuniary
jurisdiction of City Civil Courts in Mumbai to Rs. 10 crores. The City Civil Court
in Mumbai can entertain cases valued at Rs. 50 lakhs or more, falling well within its
current jurisdictional limit.
Under the Limitation Act 1963, the cause of action arises from a breach of warranty.
The breach occurred when Musk refused to acknowledge or remedy the engine
problems despite the car being under warranty and diagnosing a manufacturing
defect. The applicable limitation period for Mr Roshan's suit is three years from the
date of the cause of action until December 2026.