IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Commercial Use Admission – A categorical admission of commercial use in the pleadings creates a jurisdictional hurdle. The Commission reaffirmed that whether a party is a “Consumer” must be decided as a preliminary matter before merits are discussed.
(2) Warranty Obligations – Under the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Law, a manufacturer’s primary obligation during the warranty period is to repair or replace defective parts. A refund of the entire purchase price is not a default remedy for rectifiable issues.
(3) Manufacturing defect – Repeated repairs or engine replacement under warranty do not automatically prove a “manufacturing defect” without an expert’s technical report.

JUDGMENT

R.N. Sarswat, Member (Non-Judicial)—Complainant’s Version Mr. Jayantilal (hereinafter referred to as Complainant No.1) alleged that he purchased a Mahindra Bolero XLS, bearing Registration No. RJ-12-UA-2632, from K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Dungarpur (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.1), which operates under K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 2), on 25.11.2015, for a total consideration of Rs.7,40,955/-. The said vehicle was manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 3).

2. It was alleged that soon after purchase, the vehicle started developing problems relating to coolant water entering into the engine and mixing with the engine oil. According to the Complainants, after the vehicle had run approximately 9000 kilometers, the coolant was exhausted, whereafter the vehicle was taken to the service center of Opposite Party No. 2 at Banswara, where servicing was carried out. The Complainants were informed that the said issue was normal in nature.

3. It was further pleaded that on 09.03.2016, the vehicle again developed similar problems and was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1; however, the issue could not be resolved. Consequently, on 10.03.2016, the vehicle was taken to the service center of Opposite Party No. 2 at Udaipur, where it was found that coolant water was mixing with the engine oil. The vehicle, being under warranty, was repaired. However, it was alleged that despite the repairs, the same problem recurred. Thereafter, the Complainants left the vehicle at the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1 and demanded replacement of the vehicle, but contrary to their request, the vehicle was not replaced, and only the engine was replaced.

4. The Complainants contended that due to the deficiency in service and negligent conduct of the Opposite Parties, they suffered substantial financial loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Being aggrieved, the Complainants filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/72/2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dungarpur (hereinafter referred to as “DCDRC”) on 30.08.2016, seeking the following reliefs:—

• To direct Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 to refund an amount of Rs.7,40,955/- or, in the alternative, to replace the vehicle with a new Bolero XLS.

• To award Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for economic loss caused due to deficiency in service.

• To award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.

• To award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

• To direct Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 4) not to collect the monthly instalments in the event the old vehicle was not replaced with a new one by Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3.

• To grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Proceedings before the DCDRC

5. Upon filing of the complaint by the Complainants, the DCDRC issued notices to all the Opposite Parties, which were duly served. The matter was thereafter admitted against all Opposite Parties, including Opposite Party No. 2 (Appellant in Appeal No. FA/146/2017) and Opposite Party No. 3 (Appellant in Appeal No. FA/153/2017). During the course of proceedings, Complainant No. 2 filed his evidence affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint; however, Complainant No. 1 did not file any evidence affidavit in support of his pleadings.

6. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, namely K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant in FA/146/2017), filed a detailed written statement denying all allegations and raising several preliminary objections. It was contended that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purposes, as admitted by him in paragraph 9 of the complaint itself, and therefore, he does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further objected that Com