The Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Mr. Naresh Katyal (Judicial Member) and Mrs. Manjula Sharma (Member), has ruled that proving a manufacturing defect in a vehicle requires expert evidence. The mere occurrence of repeated repairs or recurring defects does not automatically establish the presence of a manufacturing defect.
Case Summary
The complainant purchased a motorcycle from Hero MotoCorp through Jai Automobiles (“Dealer”). From the day of purchase, the motorcycle experienced issues. Initially, the Dealer charged Rs. 355 for minor repairs, but the motorcycle broke down again, prompting the replacement of its wheel for Rs. 2531. After further malfunctions, the motorcycle was transported to the Dealer, who charged Rs. 271 for additional repairs.
Following more breakdowns and further repairs costing Rs. 2038, the Dealer acknowledged a possible manufacturing defect and provided a two-year guarantee. Dissatisfied with the recurring problems, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani, Haryana (“District Commission”) against Hero MotoCorp and the Dealer. The entities failed to appear, leading the District Commission to order the replacement of the motorcycle and award Rs. 5000 for harassment and litigation costs. Hero MotoCorp and the Dealer appealed this decision to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission”).
Commission’s Findings
The State Commission noted that the complainant had not provided an expert report to demonstrate a manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. It criticized the District Commission’s assumption that repeated repairs and part replacements inherently indicated a manufacturing defect.
Citing precedents such as Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & another [1 (2010) CPJ 235 (NC)] and TATA Motors Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goyal and Others [RP No. 2309 of 2008], the State Commission emphasized that repeated repairs do not necessarily signify a manufacturing defect without expert evidence. The Commission also referenced Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra and Anr. [(2006) 4 SCC 644], where the Supreme Court found that defects in vehicle parts alone did not warrant a vehicle replacement.
Due to the absence of expert evidence proving a manufacturing defect, the State Commission rejected the complainant’s request for a new motorcycle. However, it upheld the Rs. 5000 compensation for harassment, recognizing the complainant’s repeated visits and the motorcycle’s poor performance. Consequently, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal, overturning the order for a motorcycle replacement but affirming the compensation award.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676