NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Through Video Conferencing
Brij Mohan Sharma – Petitioner
versus
Vikas Automobiles and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.2235 of 2015
(Against the Order dated 06/07/2015 in Appeal No.2644/2001 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 15.12.2020

IMPORTANT POINT
Inherent manufacturing defect in vehicle has to be duly proved.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Motor vehicle – Manufacturing defect – Claim for – Scope – Complainant purchased a vehicle from a sub-agent is respondent no.1 – Vehicle was manufactured by respondent no.2 which developed certain defects – Plea that it was not the inherent defect but a defect which had developed due to overloading of the vehicle of goods and passengers not supported by evidence – Complainant also failed to brought on record any evidence to show that the engine put in vehicle by manufacture was not suitable for the six seater vehicle which he had purchased – Nothing brought on record to show that vehicle remained unworthy of road – Change of engine also not proved – As compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded to complainant and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs also awarded – All other directions of the fora below set aside.

Held: The fact is that the defects developed in the vehicle were of such nature which the Respondent No.1 could not remove and the vehicle was sent to Delhi for repairs. The vehicle remained in Delhi from September 1996 to October 1996 and this shows that the massive repair work had been done on the vehicle. Although, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has contended that the defects for which the vehicle was brought only relate to excessive consumption of the engine oil, yet no evidence to this effect has been produced by the Respondent No.1, although they had ample opportunities to do so. Not even an affidavit to contradict the contention and the submission of the Complainant that the engine of the vehicle which developed the defect related to the excessive consumption of engine oil, has been filed. There is no contradictory evidence on record and the circumstances also prove that within three months of the purchase of the vehicle, a defect in the engine had been developed. There is no evidence as to the nature of defects but the circumstances clearly show that there was an inherent defect in the engine, that is the reason that it took many days for the repair of the vehicle. The argument that it was not the inherent defect but a defect which had developed due to overloading of the vehicle of goods and the passengers does not find support from any evidence on record. The finding of the State Commission to the effect that the defects which developed due to overloading is therefore perverse as it is based on no evidence but simply a surmise.

In view of the fact that no such evidence has been led by the Complainant to prove this manufacturing defect, I am of the opinion that he had totally failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle which he contends.

The argument of learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 is that there is no deficiency in service on their part because they got the vehicle repaired as soon as the defects were reported to them and that they had not charged even a single penny for that because the vehicle was within the warranty period.

Again the vehicle developed problem in June 1997 and thereafter also, the vehicle developed defects on and off and the defects in the engine could not be removed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 argues that there is no evidence on record in support of this contention of the Complainant. The Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence wherein he has stated on oath all these facts. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has admitted that in Bulandhahar where the vehicle was purchased and where the Respondent No.1 is running their business, there is no authorised dealer of Respondent No.2, the manufacturer. Since there is no authorised dealer designated by the manufacturer, the buyer had the option to get the vehicle repaired from any place. In the warranty, the name of the agent is also not mentioned. There is nothing in the sale letter etc. restricting the buyer from getting the vehicle repaired from any particular place. The Respondent had not taken any stand in their written statement that there are various authorised service stations for the repair of the vehicle in Bulandshahar and that the vehicle was not repaired from those authorised service stations. It is a settled proposition of law that the proceedings before a consumer forum are of the nature of summary trial where strict principles of burden of proof and production of evidences are not applicable. Preponderance of evidences in support of a fact is the principle. Also the attending circumstances of the case proved on record and uncontradicted testimony of the Complainant in the light of these circumstances can be considered sufficient material to reach to a conclusion in a summary trial case. In the present case, the uncontradicted testimony of the Complainant clearly proves that even after 07.10.1996, the vehicle was not in a perfect running condition and was developing snags off and on. The Complainant has also neither produced any evidence nor contended in evidence on record that the vehicle remained unworthy of road and could not run on road. Also he has not produced any evidence to prove that the engine of the vehicle was ever changed which he could have done by producing the original RC bearing one engine number and after the change of the engine, the renewed RC bearing the another engine number. His contention therefore that the engine was changed does not find support for evidences and his mere statement to this effect cannot be accepted. The Commission, however, in the light of attending circumstances, accepts his statement that the vehicle was not running smoothly and was developing snags off and on and the defect was not fully removed on 07.10.1996. The Complaint itself was filed on 30.11.1997. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the impugned order.

The Complainant has sought refund of the price of the vehicle. However, he has not produced any evidence on record to prove that the vehicle remained unworthy to road and where the vehicle had been through all these years.

The District Forum had ordered for replacement of the vehicle of the Complainant with a new vehicle. However, in view of my above discussion, I modify these directions of the District Forum and award a compensation of Rs.30,000/- which shall be payable by both the Respondents as their liability is joint and severe. The order directions of the District Forum remain the same. The Appeal and award litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant towards litigation expenses. The entire payment shall be made within eight weeks. (Paras 8 to 14)

Result: Appeal allowed.