Back
A. P. SAHI, BHARATKUMAR PANDYA
H. G. Jain – Appellant
Versus
Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
A.P. Sahi, President.—This Complaint arises out of an allegation of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties regarding the defects in a luxury car purchased by the Complainant manufactured by Volkswagen and purchased by the Complainant from the dealer M/s B. U. Bhandari Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 3 herein. The Complaint was filed on 17.04.2015 in which notices were issued on 01.05.2015. The Complaint originally designed had four Opposite Parties namely 1. Volkswagen A.G. (Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft); 2. Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.; 3. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. and 4. B. U. Bhandari Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The original Opposite Party No. 1 situated at Germany was sought to be served through the Ministry of Law and Justice. This exercise of service continued for long and ultimately the Complainant moved an Application for deleting the Opposite Party No. 1 through IA/1194/2022 that was allowed on 17.02.2022. Consequently, Opposite Party No. 1 was struck off from the array of parties.
2. Of the remaining three, the original Opposite Party No. 2 and 3, now Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 were served but in spite of service of notice they failed to file
(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.
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 ....
(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 ....
(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....
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.
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
