IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 substantial repairs or frequent workshop visits for the same issue, a “defect” is established even without an expert report.
(2) Goodwill Offers – A manufacturer’s offer to replace a vehicle at a discounted price is seen as a “bonafide gesture” of customer service but does not necessarily constitute a legal admission of a manufacturing defect.
(3) Commercial purpose – A company purchasing a luxury car for the use of its Director is a “consumer” and the purchase is not automatically deemed a “commercial purpose.”

ORDER

A.P. Sahi, President—The complainant has come up through its Director Sunny Garg alleging deficiency in service for the supply and sale of a luxury car “Range Rover”, which is a four wheel drive vehicle manufactured by M/s. Jaguar Ltd., U.K. and imported to India and marketed through M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. The car was purchased after being booked on 21.11.2009. The vehicle order booking agreement for shipment from M/s. Jaguar/Land Rover has been filed on record giving a description of the vehicle of an Alaska white colour. The sales order has also been filed on record with the basic price of the vehicle being Rs.99,95,451/-. The said sales order was given effect to and the vehicle was supplied through the invoice which describes the product as a Range Rover 3.6 ltr TDV8. The said invoice is also on record.

2. The vehicle was driven after the delivery was made on 08.01.2010 at Mumbai to the complainant and was driven by Mr. Sunny Garg to Chandigarh. On his way, after having driven the vehicle for about 750 kms, the trouble reported is that the car started wobbling when the brakes were applied and the DVD player was not functioning. According to the complainant, he had contacted one Ms. Vishakha at the Mumbai office of the OP, who was called upon to contact the Service Incharge. The complainant was advised to drive the vehicle under 100 kms per hour till some service representative called back to gauge the exact diagnosis, but according to the complainant he did not receive any call and as a result whereof he drove the car cautiously till New Delhi.

3. It is alleged that at New Delhi, he was informed that the workshop was closed during day time and ineffective replies were given by the dealers at Delhi and even at Ludhiana. According to the complainant, the problem grew and subsisted and consequently on 15.03.2010, a letter was dispatched to the OP entailing the complaints and narrating the manner of the defect in the vehicle.

4. Thus began the dispute between the parties regarding the defect in the vehicle which was reported and all complaints according to the OP were attended to and replacements were made to satisfy the customer.

5. Ultimately at one point of time, the Ops through their officials Sanjiv Tiwari sent a mail on 30.08.2010, offering a sale of a new Range Rover with improved features of 4.4 Diesel engine at a special price of Rs.1,04,24,646/- as a replacement. It was understood that the price already paid for the vehicle purchased by the complainant would be adjusted against this price and that would hardly be a difference of a couple of lakhs. The complainant was also requested to sign a No Objection Certificate to that effect and the said document also accompanies the sale letter, but the complainant declined to pay the difference of the price of for the new vehicle which was stated to be Rs.4,29,000/- and also demanded interest. This letter dated 07.09.2010 has also been brought on record along with the said letter of offer referred to above. It appears that the OPs instead requested the complainant to get his vehicle to be repaired from the concerned dealer as he had not accepted the replacement offer of a new specially priced vehicle.

6. In essence, it appears that since the complainant had not accepted the said offer of the exchange of a new vehicle on a special price, the matter did not proceed any further.

7. According to the OPs, brake pad issues were attended to and they were all replaced timely. Nonetheless, with no solution forthcoming as per the satisfaction of the complainant, a legal notice was served on 08.02.2011 by the complainant on the OPs. The OPs have taken a stand that the vehicle had not been driven appropriately and had been negotiating bad road conditions with heavy braking that resulted in the poor condition of the brake pads which were self-explanatory and had to be replaced thrice. The stand of the OPs is that the vehicle was driven contrary to the Owner’s Manual cautions and preca