Back
A. P. SAHI, BHARATKUMAR PANDYA
International Cars and Motors Limited – Appellant
Versus
Malini Shaju – Respondent
ORDER
This Revision Petition has been filed by International Cars and Motors Limited and Anr. who are the manufacturers of Rhino RX SUVs. From the Array of Parties it appears that they are of the Sonalika Group and the dispute in the present Complaint is about such a vehicle having developed deficiencies, the Complaint whereof was filed by Respondent No. – 1 herein, being Consumer Complaint No. 88 of 2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulum, Kerala. The Complaint also arrayed the dealer, Respondent No. – 2, M/s Maxim International Cars, Kochi from where the Complainant had purchased the vehicle. The vehicle had been financed by Respondent No. – 3.
2. The District Commission vide Order dated 27.08.2012 allowed the Complaint holding that the manufacturers, the Petitioners herein together with the dealer, Respondent No. – 2 herein were liable jointly and severally to refund Rs.7,60,000/- after deducting 30%, and the Complainant shall return the defective vehicle to the Opposite Parties simultaneously. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed.
3. Aggrieved the Petitioners along with the dealer joined in First Appeal No. 927 of 2012 and contested the order
(1) Manufacturing Defect – The term ‘Manufacturing Defect’ as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary is a deviation from design specifications during production resulting in a product’s defect, frailty or....
The court ruled that a manufacturing defect requires substantial evidence; observed minor issues in vehicles do not justify replacement without such evidence.
“Compensation for manufacturing defect in the car purchased upheld.”
(1) Manufacturing Defect vs. Recurring Defect – A “manufacturing defect” generally requires expert analysis under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. However, NCDRC clarified that if a new vehicle requires ....
Well reasoned orders – Both the State Commission and District Forum have issued well-reasoned orders, duly and appropriately addressing the issues raised by Petitioner.
Purchase of vehicle – Manufacturing defect – Impleadment of manufacturer – Defect & allegation of deficiency was existing as a cause & it was continuing even upon filing of complaint – Bar of limitat....
“Unapproved fitment” - Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.
A complainant must prove manufacturing defect in a vehicle by adequate and admissible evidence supported by an expert opinion to claim total replacement or refund of the purchase price.
(1) Vehicle need not necessarily have a manufacturing defect – Even if there is a defect within warranty period then liability can arise.(2) Admission is the best piece of evidence.
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
