IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Expert Evidence – The warranty obligation of the opposite party no.1 is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to be suffering from manufacturing defect within the limits of the warranty through expert evidence.
(2) Manufacturing Defect – no expert opinion of any authorized laboratory or authority has been brought on record by the complainant to establish that the vehicle suffered manufacturing defect.

ORDER

The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

This is an appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant against the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.420/2015 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed against the opposite party no.1 and 2.

2. The facts of the case as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that he had purchased a vehicle Honda Amaze car in the year 2013 from the opposite party no.2-dealer of the manufacturer the opposite party no.1. The registration number of the subject vehicle is MP-07 CB-8002. Thereafter he got the subject vehicle insured with the opposite party no.3-insurance company. It is submitted that on 11.07.2015 there was heavy rainfall in Gwalior and when he was returning from his relative’s place suddenly there was problem in the vehicle and stopped again and again. He immediately informed the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 towed his vehicle to their workshop for which he paid Rs.2000/- as towing charges to the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that after inspecting the car, the opposite party no.2 informed the complainant that the subject vehicle is having starting problem as water entered into the engine for which over haul of the engine is necessary which will incur expenses of Rs.68,000/-. It is further submitted by the complainant that he intimated the opposite party no.2 that the vehicle is still under warranty and insured with the opposite party no.3. Both the opposite party no.2 and 3 declined as the damages are not covered under the warranty and insurance cover. It is submitted that it was informed that the expenses towards engine repair will have to be borne by the complainant and therefore the complainant gave his consent to opposite party no.2 to repair the subject vehicle at his costs.

3. It is further submitted by the complainant that the opposite party no.2 repaired the subject vehicle on 07.08.2015 and for that charged Rs.60,329/- from him which he paid via cheque under protest. It is alleged that fault in the vehicle arose due to manufacturing defect despite that the opposite party no.2 dealer and service centre of opposite party no.1 unilaterally charged Rs.60,329/- towards repairs of the vehicle. The opposite party no.3-insurance company despite the fact that the car was insured with them did not pay the repair charges which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs.1,12,329/- with interest.

4. The opposite party no.1/appellant resisted the complaint stating that the complainant has not approached the District Commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The opposite party no.1 is manufacturer and for any acts and omissions of opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.1 is not liable. There in no contract between the complainant and the opposite party no.1. Terms and conditions of dealership agreement are applicable to both parties. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as also there has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1. The subject vehicle experienced severe problem in its engine due to hydro lock as it was driven in a waterlogged area which led water to ingress into the main parts of the engine. It is pertinent to note that such hydro lock problem occurs when a liquid substance gets into the engine cylinder. It is further pointed out that the problem occurred due to negligence on part of the complialnant who had driven the vehicle in a water logged area. Such acts are not covered under warranty obligations.

5. It is further submitted that the Owner’s Manual specifically cautious the owner under the driving head ‘Driving in Bad Weather’ do not drive on the road w