NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – Complainants
versus
Piyush Bangad and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Revision Petition Nos.232 and 283 of 2020
Decided on 25.7.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Automobile – Manufacturing defect – Direction for replacement of vehicle – Expert evidence has not been led on behalf of complainant – Impugned Order passed by State Commission is bereft of any detailed reasons or analysis and contains brief reproduction of facts without discussing evidence or contentions raised on behalf of opposite party/appellants – State Commission deciding lis between parties at least should have reflected reasons in support of conclusions based on evidence and dealt with contentions raised by respective Counsel for opposite parties – Impugned Order passed by State Commission is bereft of any detailed reasons or analysis and contains brief reproduction of facts without discussing evidence or contentions raised on behalf of opposite party/appellants – Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to State Commission for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (Paras 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Result: Revision Petition disposed of.
ORDER
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member.—Two separate Revision Petitions have been preferred by the opposite parties in the original complaint (i.e. manufacturer of the vehicle, namely Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. And Authorized Dealer of vehicle, namely Bhilwara Agro Auto Services Pvt. Ltd.), assailing Order dated 18.11.2019 passed in FA Nos. 725 of 2018 and 742 of 2018 by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan, hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’, whereby the Order passed by the Ld. District Forum for replacement of the vehicle has been upheld. Consequently, the appeals preferred on behalf of the opposite parties (i.e. the manufacturer as well as the authorized dealer) before the Ld. State Commission were dismissed.
2. The petitioner and respondent, hereinafter are referred as opposite parties and complainant respectively, as reflected in the original complaint, for sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix as noticed in in the impugned Order may be briefly referred. Complainant purchased Mahindra XUV 500 FWD W8 Model (SUV), bearing registration number R.J.06-UB-6666 manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (opposite party No. 1) from authorized dealer Bhilwara Agro Auto Services Private Ltd. (opposite party No. 2) on 30.08.2013. At the time of purchase complainant was informed that SUV had Supplemental Restraint System and had been provided with six air bags (i.e. one air bag each in front of the driver and passenger sitting on the front seat, two air bags at the sides and two curtain airbags). On 12.05.2015 while complainant was travelling from Bhilwada to Jaipur along with his wife and relatives, the vehicle met with an accident, in order to save a Mopad driver who had carelessly brought the Mopad in front of the vehicle of the complainant. Despite efforts by the driver to control the vehicle, it got unbalanced and collided with a sign board situated on the side of the road, followed with a collision with a stone which was of the dimension of 4 x 2 ft. resulting in severe damage to the vehicle. Despite the severe nature of accident, the Supplemental Restraint System of the SUV failed to work and none of the air bags got deployed/activated. Apart from above complainant alleged that there had been one or the other problem with the vehicle immediately after purchase, including issue of suspension in spite of changing of both the front shockers and suspension by opposite party No. 2. Also no satisfactory response was received from opposite party No. 2. An amount of Rs.3,75,243/- is stated to have been incurred for the repair of the vehicle due to damage arising out of the accident.
4. Complaint was opposed by opposite party No. 1/manufacturer on the ground that the responsibility of opposite party No. 1 subsists only during the period of warranty on the prescribed terms and conditions and the complainant had not presented any ‘expert report’ regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further averred that the vehicles are designed in such a way that on collision with any object or vehicle from front direction, with an angle less than 30 degrees and depending upon severity of accident/impact, the air bags are deployed, for ensuring the safety of the passengers. Emphasis was made that an air bag is not designed to deploy for every type of crash and the same depends on the type of impact. The functionality of the air bags in the specific circumstances is also stated to have been reflected in the warranty manual. It was further pointed out that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 30.09.2013 and had been successfully plying the same for about 60000 kilometers prior to meeting with an accident on 12.05.2015. The service record of vehicle reflected that the complainant had driven the vehicle for 60,870 kilometers till 24.05.2015.
5. Opposite party No. 2/Bhilwara Agro Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. (Authorised Dealer) reiterated that the safety features of the air bags and the conditions in
State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Chandra Nandi (2019) 4 SCC 357. (Para 10) – Referred.
State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Chandra Nandi (2019) 4 SCC 357. (Para 11) – Referred.
Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. & Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31.(Para 12) – Referred.
Manufacturing defect in vehicle must be established by adducing expert evidence.
Res ipsa loquitur applies to infer manufacturing defect in airbags from non-deployment without expert evidence.
(1) Consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating impact of a collision on theories based on velocity and force.(2) Limitation will run from the day defect surfaces in a case.
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.”
New vehicle with early repeated defects constitutes 'defect'; expert opinion not mandatory if cogent evidence; company director personal use qualifies as consumer; manufacturer-dealer jointly liable ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.