Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunita Sharma, R.K. Verma, JJ.
SHRI AMIT KUMAR — Appellant
Vs.
SHIVANSH AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondents
First Appeal No. 271 of 2018
Decided On : 19-04-2021
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - MANUFACTURING DEFECT - REPAIR CHARGES - COMPENSATION - [SECTION 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 14(1)(d), 15] - APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART: REPAIR CHARGES, INTEREST, COMPENSATION AWARDED; REPLACEMENT OF VEHICLE DENIED.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased a Nissan Micra car from the authorized dealer of the manufacturer (OP 2). Soon after the purchase, the car developed problems like emission of black smoke, noise, and leakage of engine oil. The complainant took the car to the dealer for repairs several times during the warranty period. The dealer repaired the car, but the problems persisted. The complainant filed a consumer complaint seeking replacement of the car or refund of the purchase price, alleging manufacturing defect and deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the complainant failed to prove that the car suffered from any manufacturing defect. The problems reported by the complainant were minor in nature and could be attributed to normal wear and tear or use of impure fuel. The Commission also found that the dealer had repaired the car within the warranty period. However, the Commission held that the complainant was entitled to compensation for the inconvenience and misery suffered due to the improper functioning of the vehicle.
Issues: 1. Whether the car suffered from any manufacturing defect? 2. Whether the dealer was deficient in service? 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to replacement of the car or refund of the purchase price? 4. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To establish a claim of total replacement by a new vehicle, the complainant must prove by adequate and admissible evidence supported by an expert opinion that the vehicle suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect. 2. The onus of proving manufacturing defect lies on the complainant. 3. Minor defects in a car, which can be attributed to normal wear and tear or use of impure fuel, do not amount to manufacturing defect. 4. The manufacturer is liable to remove the defect or replace the defective parts of the vehicle if the complainant satisfactorily discharges the onus of proving manufacturing defect. 5. A complainant is entitled to compensation for the inconvenience and misery suffered due to the improper functioning of the vehicle, even if the defects are minor.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The dealer was directed to pay the repair charges incurred by the complainant, along with interest and compensation. The claim for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price was denied.
ORDER :
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 06.09.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Mandi in Consumer Complaint No. 57/2017 titled Amit Kumar Versus Shivansh Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that he purchased a Nissan Micra car manufactured by the opposite party No.2 from the opposite party No.1, an authorized dealer of the opposite party No.2 on 09.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.5,76,000/-. Warranty of two years was extended. It was assigned registration No.HP-31B-1879. It is pleaded that soon after purchase, the car developed problems. Its exhaust pipe started emitting black smoke, which was unusual. This fact was brought to the notice of the opposite party No. 1, who assured to rectify the problems. In the month of April, 2016, he was going to Chandigarh and when he reached near Kiratpur Sahib, the car suddenly started making irritating noise.
3. It is averred that being worried about the safety of vehicle, he switched off the engine and contacted the opposite party No.1. After hearing him about the problem in detail, an employee of the opposite party No.1 advised to open the bonnet of car and inspect the functioning of engine closely. He acted as per advise and found that fan belt of the car has been partially broken. This fact was intimated to the opposite party No.1. He was advised to cut hanging piece of fan belt, then start the engine and drive the vehicle as usual without any fear. After returning to his village, he took the car to the opposite party No.1. Car was inspected by the opposite party No. 1 and he was asked to come after a few days since the fan belt was out of stock. He was asked to drive the vehicle in a normal way without any fear but irritating sound persisted. He requested the opposite party No.1 to recheck the car and service the same. The vehicle was serviced by the opposite party No.1 on the same day i.e. 27.04.2016. Noise continued and became louder than before. As advised by the opposite party No.1, he waited for arrival of fan belt in its stock. On 18.05.2016, he was informed by the opposite party No.1 that the fan belt has arrived. He should immediately bring the car and get it replaced. Fan belt was got changed. Bill dated 18.05.2016 worth Rs. 1,368/- was issued by the opposite party No.1. Even after replacement of fan belt, the sound did not stop. He contacted the opposite party No.1, who remarked that irritating noise will definitely come to an end after the vehicle is run for some kilometers, but sound persisted. It became louder and more irritating.
4. It is further averred that complainant took the car on 04.06.2016 to opposite party No.1 for further check-up. He was asked to leave the vehicle in the workshop for check-up and rectification of defects. Car was dismantled and repaired by the opposite party No.1. It was delivered to him after 21 days. Pre-invoice dated 25.06.2016 amounting to Rs.45,303/- was issued by the opposite party No.1. Since vehicle was repaired during warranty period, he requested the opposite party No.1 to bring sequence of events and manufacturing defect in the car to the knowledge of the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No. 1 then tried to placate him by issuing revised bill of Rs.28,513/- in place of earlier bill/pre-invoice dated 25.06.2016 worth Rs.45,303/-. An assurance was given that the matter will be brought to the notice of the manufacturer (OP No.2) and he will get adequate relief. He was made to pay the revised bill amount of Rs.28,513/-, though the vehicle was under warranty. The car ran smoothly for some time. In February, 2017, he noticed leakage of engine oil. Opposite party No. 1 was contacted. Car was repaired against payment of Rs.31,544/- vide bill dated 22.02.2017. Since the day of purchase, the vehicle is creating various problems. It suffers from inherent manufacturing defect. He was forced to spend huge amoun
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
