Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member and Anup K Thakur, Member
Md. Hassan Khalid Haidar —Petitioner
versus
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.
and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.525 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 15/12/2017 in Appeal No. 48/2014 of the State Commission Assam)
Decided on 8.6.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Somiran Sharma, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
If a vehicle has manufacturing defect it should manifest it soon after purchase.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Automobile—Manufacturing defect—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal—It is an admitted fact that first problem in car occurred after 9-10 months after vehicle was brought and after it had run over 25,000 Kms.—If vehicle had manufacturing defect it should have been manifested soon after purchase and petitioner could not have driven over 25,000 Kms with a defective car—Defects pointed out were repaired every time to satisfaction of petitioner—Petitioner has failed to provide any evidence to prove that vehicle had a manufacturing defect either by producing evidence of an expert or taking opportunity of submitting an application before District Forum for appointment of an expert to examine vehicle for an expert opinion—Impugned order affirmed—Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 11, 15 and 16)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 15.12.2017 of the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guwahati, (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 48 of 2014.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that on 17.03.2011 the petitioner/ complainant had purchased a Chevrolet Cruze car, bearing registration number AS 03 K 0009 manufactured by the General Motors India Pvt., Ltd., at a price of Rs.13,55,541/- from the authorised dealer Radiant Motors Pvt. Ltd., Pulibor A T Road, Jorhat - respondent no. 2.
3. According to the petitioner, after 9-10 months of purchase of the said car, on 11.01.2012 the vehicle started giving trouble for which, he took the car to respondent no. 2 firm and the same was duly repaired. On 17.01.2012 the car again broke down on the road and the vehicle failed to take start and the car was taken to the dealer for repairing. The petitioner stated that the vehicle was not fully repaired by the dealer for which, he had to issue legal notice to the manufacturer demanding replacement of the car as it had a manufacturing defect. Ultimately, the car was repaired and handed over to the petitioner on 30.03.2012. However, the car once again developed starting problem on 03.04.2012 and it was taken to the dealer for repairing. Other problems like jerks during the journey also allegedly developed in the car. The car was repaired and handed over to the petitioner by the end of July 2012. On 26.09.2012 again the car failed to take start. The dealer reportedly informed the petitioner vide letter dated 08.10.2012, that one dead cell of the car battery needed replacement. The petitioner thereafter intimated the dealer that he was ready to replace the battery on condition that if the same problem persisted, the respondents should be liable to replace the defective vehicle with a new one with compensation. The petitioner stated that after receipt of the said communication, the respondents did not submit any reply nor did they replace the defective car. According to the petitioner, the car suffered from manufacturing defects for which, the respondents are liable to replace the car with a new car. Hence, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint with the following prayer:—
1. Directing the respondents to immediately replace the defective vehicle of the petitioner with a new one of same model;
2. To direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation in regard to the loss of income, defective and negligent in providing proper and adequate service to the petitioner and also for physical and mental harassment to the petitioner;
3. To direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation;
4. Any other relief which the petitioner is entitled to get as per the provision of the law and for this act etc.,
4. In their written statement, the respondents have submitted that the records of the vehicle history and maintenance revealed that as on January 11, 2012 (the date on which the starting problem was allegedly first detected), the car had covered an aggregate mileage of more than 25,000 kms and had been running a daily average of 85 kms which itself was a testimony that the car had no manufacturing defects. If there had been any manufacturing defect leading to any starting problem, then that would have manifested at a very initial stage. The problems reported by the petitioner, according to the respondents were nothing but on account of normal wear and tear. Further, the fuel used in the car was of not required purity.
5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jorhat (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 03.06.2014 while allowing the complaint, ordered as under:—
“Following my discussion in the foregoing paragraphs this Consumer Complaint petition is allowed with a direction to all the OPs to replace the Chevrolet Cruze Car of the complainant with a new one of the same make an
