NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and M. Shreesha, Member
Anand Kumar Bansal – Petitioner
versus
M/s. Premier Ltd. and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.2815 and 2816 of 2015
Decided on 31.7.2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Full refund can be ordered where vehicle was sold with manufacturing defect.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Automobile—Manufacturing defects—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal—There are no substantial reasons given by Manufacturer or Dealer as to cause for replacement of engine twice within first year of purchase of a new vehicle—Expert opinion was signed only by service engineer of Manufacturer and is not an independent expert opinion given by a third party—State Commission has not given any reasons as to why replacement of engine twice can be construed to be a normal problem as observed by it in impugned order—As vehicle is not delivered to Complainant, his signatures in job cards on endorsement that work was done to satisfaction of Complainant, is irrelevant—Vehicle had a manufacturing defect which is unexplained by Manufacturer—As vehicle which was sold was having a manufacturing defect, Manufacturer alone directed to take back vehicle from Dealer and refund total price of vehicle less 10% depreciation, together with 9% interest and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

Held: From the afore-noted job cards it is evident that the vehicle in question was taken 10 times for repairs to the workshop within a span of less than one year of its purchase. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased on 31.12.2011 and it was taken to the workshop on 18.01.2012, 09.02.2012, 16.03.2012, 04.04.2012, 26.05.2012, 04.07.2012, 16.07.2012, 11.09.2012, 12.10.2012 and 20.12.2012. The submission of the Learned Counsels appearing for the Manufacturer and also for the Dealer, that the vehicle was examined by an expert and that the State Commission was justified in holding that the Complainant did not bring forward any expert opinion, is untenable in the present as it can be seen from the record and from the job cards per se that the engine of the vehicle was replaced twice i.e. on 04.04.212 and thereafter on 12.10.2012 within a period of one year of its purchase. The expert opinion as well the State Commission did not address itself to the admitted fact that the engine was replaced twice. There are no substantial reasons given by the Manufacturer or the Dealer as to the cause for the replacement of the engine twice within the first year of purchase of a new vehicle. Be that as it may, it is seen from the expert opinion that it was signed only by the service engineer of the Manufacturer and is not an independent expert opinion given by a third party. The State Commission has not given any reasons as to why replacement of the engine twice can be construed to be ‘a normal problem’, as observed by it in paragraph 12 of the impugned order specially when Ex. C-15 depicts that the engine did not start, engine assembly was replaced and more specifically the Dealer had kept the car with him for a period of 30 days.

We also find force in the contention of the Complainant that as the vehicle is not delivered to the Complainant, his signatures in the job cards on the endorsement “that work was done to the satisfaction of the Complainant”, in the present circumstances of the case, is irrelevant. The fact remains that there was no cogent reason given by the Respondents for change of engine twice within a period of one year apart from other defects. Since ‘defect’ means any imperfection or shortcoming and ‘manufacturing defect’ is a shortcoming in a product resulting from departure from its design and is dangerous than the consumer expects the product to be, we are of the considered view that stoppage of engine and replacement of the same twice during the first year squarely falls within the definition of ‘defect’ and ‘manufacturing defect.’ For all the afore-noted reasons we hold that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect which is unexplained by the Manufacturer and we do not find negligence on the part of the Complainant in leaving the vehicle behind with the Dealer and not accepting the delivery in such circumstances. As we hold that the vehicle which was sold was having a manufacturing defect, in the light of the circumstances of this case, the Manufacturer i.e. M/s Premier Ltd. alone is directed to take back the vehicle from the Dealer and refund the total price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.6,15,220/- less 10% depreciation, as the vehicle was used for a period of one year, (though it was taken to the workshop for 10 times in that period), together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 20.12.2012 till the date of realization, together with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Case against the Dealer is dismissed. (Paras 14 and 15)

Result: Revision Petitions allowed.