NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Maruti Suzuki India Limited – Petitioner
versus
Deepak Singh and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.3511 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 22/08/2017 in Appeal No.867/2014 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 26.3.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
“Compensation for manufacturing defect in the car purchased upheld.”

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 11 and 2(i)(g) : Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 2(11) – Motor Vehicle – Manufacturing defect – Compensation – Legality of – Complainant purchased a car by the petition from respondent No.2 – He reported defects in the car i.e. noisy suspension, etc. – While reaching to the conclusion that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle the Foras below have relied on cogent evidences of nature that the vehicle had to be taken repeatedly for services on number of occasions immediately after purchase for the rectification of defects – Respondent No.2 failed to rectify defects – Petition failed to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle – Impugned direction to petitioner as given by Fora below to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service, upheld – Interference with declined – No illegality found in the impugned order.

Held: Keeping in mind the afore-said proposition of law, while re-examining the present Revision Petition it is apparent that the Ld. Counsel contends and argues that the conclusion arrived at by the Foras about the manufacturing defect is incorrect and wrong. This Commission has discussed above that it can only interfere with the findings of the Fora below if the findings are perverse or there is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction. The findings can be said to be perverse when it is based on no evidence and when the material evidence has not been considered. In the present case while reaching to the conclusion that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle the Foras below have relied on cogent evidences of the nature that the vehicle had to be taken repeatedly for services on number of occasions immediately after purchase for the rectification of defects, which the Respondent No.2 the Authorized Dealer had failed to rectify. The Petitioner/Manufacturer although contended that there was no manufacturing defect yet it did not produce any expert opinion to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, although the law permits either of the parties to obtain expert opinion. There were sufficient evidence before the District Forum to reach to the conclusion that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect and so the District Forum did not feel any necessity to call on its own the expert opinion.

The Ld. Counsel has relied on the findings of the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Anr. 3(2009) CPJ 229 (NC) and has argued that the defects of the nature, alleged by the Complainant, are not of the nature that it can be said that the vehicle was suffering with a manufacturing defect. It is apparent that the findings given in the Hasmukh (supra) has been given on the facts and circumstances and the evidences in that case. From perusal of the orders it is apparent that the facts of case of Hasmukh (supra) were entirely different from the facts before this Commission. The facts in Hasmukh (supra) case relates to leaking of electric current through the steering wheel and the whole body of the said car. The defects were electrical in nature and the Court on the evidences led before it had concluded that since there was no expert opinion in that case to prove such a defect was a manufacturing defect, dismissed the Complaint.

The Petitioner has also relied on Sushila Automobiles Vs. Birendra Narain Prasad & Others, III(2010) CPJ 130 NC. Facts in this case are different from the facts of the present case. The facts in that case relates to some metallic sound in the car coming from the suspension kit and the defects which were in that car were duly repaired and in the light of these facts that the defects were repaired, the contention of the Complainant therein that vehicle was suffering with manufacturing defect was rejected. In the case of Raj Bala Vs. Skoda Auto & Others, 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 945 the defects mentioned were also entirely different than the defects which the Complainant herein has mentioned. The defects therein were tilting of the vehicle towards left side and instability in steering wheel, gross bubbling in the clutches etc. and it were these defects which were not found manufacturing defects. Also there was an expert report filed before District Forum in that case in which it was observed that there was no inherent defect in the vehicle. It was in the light of those facts that the decision in the case of Raj Bala (supra) was passed. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on the findings of the case of Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC) wherein this Commission has held that the District Forum could have appointed an expert on its own and that in the absence of expert evidence barely on the fact that the car was repeatedly brought to the service station for repairs and rectifications, it could not held that the car was suffering with manufacturing defects. These findings were given by this Commission on the facts alleged therein. The defects which were reported by the Complainant therein were related to the involuntary glowing of the check light on the indicator panel even during the normal running of the car and absence of the Catalytic Converter in the car despite the fact that the money was charged for that. It was on these facts that this Commission has held that the expert opinion ought to have been called for in the matter. The Ld. Counsel for the Manufacturer has also relied on State of H.P. Vs. Jai Lal & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 280. This case is not relevant for the purpose of the present case. In this case the Complainant was related to large scale bungling and misappropriation of Government money. It does not relate to consumer complaint.

The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Smt. P. Vasudeva & Anr. (2006) 4 CPJ 167 (NC) of this Commission. In this case the defect reported by the Complainant related to the defective and overheating of engine of car on the use of the AC. It is apparent that the nature of defects which were found in the subject case is entirely different then the defects noted in the cases supra.

The findings can be said to be relevant only when it has come on the similar set of facts and circumstances. As observed above the Foras below have concluded on the basis of the evidences before it. In this case it is apparent that the defects could not be removed by the dealer even by replacement of the parts and the Complainant had to repeatedly bring the subject vehicle to the service station. In the absences of any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be said that the findings are perverse. It is apparent that the findings of the State Commission are based on the evidences and is not a case of no evidence. There is no perversity in the impugned order. I also find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present revision petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. (Paras 15 to 17)

Result: Petition Dismissed.