IMPORTANT POINT
Replacement of engine of car directed for its manufacturing defect.

ORDER (ORAL)

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner i.e. the manufacturers, who was named as opposite party no. 2 & 3 in the original complaint filed by the respondent no.1/complainant in his Complaint No.377 of 2016 before the District Forum. Learned District Forum vide its order dated 19.06.2018 allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the Appeal No.459 of 2018 before the State Commission and the State Commission vide impugned order dated 18.3.2020 dismissed the appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 (herein after called as complainant) had purchased one Renault Kwid Car on 30.03.2016 from respondent no.2/dealer of the petitioner. The contention of the complainant was that the car, on the same day on which it was purchased, started giving “shrill and crackling sound” in the engine. The complainant approached the dealer/respondent no.2 (herein after referred as dealer), Mr.P.S. Sandhu himself inspected the vehicle and took a long drive and was aware of the defect but had failed to remove the defects and it was considered a manufacturing defect in the engine. His allegations were that the dealer wanted the complainant to give certificate showing that he was satisfied with the service done to the Car to which he refused. He thereafter approached the Production Manager of the petitioner and sent a letter describing the grievances, but the petitioner refused to accept the same. He came to know about a report published in the newspaper Times of India dated 18.05.2016 wherein it was reported that the engine installed in Renault Kwid Car was having a manufacturing defect and that is why the company i.e. the petitioner were stopping the production of the said car with the said engine. The complainant thereafter approached the dealer several times and finally one Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj assured him that the engine would be replaced and for that reason, the dealer sent a person on 22.7.2016 with an authority to take the car. Accordingly, the dealer collected the car from the complainant and when the car was returned to him, he found that the defect had not been removed and his grievances were not looked into by either the dealer or the petitioner. He then approached the District Forum.

3. Before the District Forum, the dealer had admitted contentions of the complainant relating to that vehicle had been not brought to them with problem in the engine and that a long drive was taken to ascertain the problem and the problem which the engine was giving could not be removed. It is also admitted that the car was again brought to service station on 22.7.2016 and thereafter returned to the complainant.

4. The objection raised by the petitioner was that there was no evidence on record to show that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The objection was also taken that the defects could only be ascertained by proper test and analysis and no expert opinion had been obtained by the complainant. It was also contended that they have no liability against the complainant because the transactions ended when the vehicle was delivered to the dealer and they cannot be held liable for any defect in the vehicle. It was also contended that the complaint was malafide.

5. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum and the learned District Forum after perusing the evidences and hearing the arguments of learned counsels and going through the case laws, held as under :

“8. Precisely, the case set up by the complainant is that he purchased one Car Renault Quid from the OP No.1 on 30.03.2016, after purchasing, the car was duly got registered with the office of DTO and registration number is PB-08-DH-3866, but since the day of purchase, there was a defect in the car i.e. “shrill and crackling sound of engine”, regarding that defect, matter was brought to the notice of OP No.1, who could not able to rectify the said defect and even t