Back
J. RAJENDRA, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Piyush Bangad – Respondent
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
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 ....
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
