Back
A. K. AGARWAL, R. N. SARSWAT
Manager, K. S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jayanti Lal – Respondent
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 Opposi
(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 decid....
Manufacturing defect—Onus to prove manufacturing defect by way of inspection by an Expert would lie upon Complainant’s side—But this cannot be a water tight proposition in all cases.
(1) Defect – It is well-established that if a defect in goods cannot be determined without proper analysis, an independent expert report is required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.(2) Corporate Do....
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.
The purchase of a vehicle by a company for its managing director's personal use does not constitute a commercial purpose, allowing for consumer protection remedies.
The court concluded that a purchase made for business promotion does not exclude the purchaser from being classified as a 'consumer', and the allegations of misrepresentation were unsubstantiated.
The court ruled that a manufacturing defect requires substantial evidence; observed minor issues in vehicles do not justify replacement without such evidence.
The requirement of substantial evidence to support claims of manufacturing defects in consumer protection cases is essential for claims to be upheld.
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
