Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60698
TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
[ Presiding Member], [ Member], JJ
Sathish Kumar D. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
Consumer Complaint No. XYZ of 2016
For the Complainant:[Complainant's Advocate’s name]
For the Opposite Parties:[Opposite Party's Advocate’s name]
The court established that the manufacturer is liable for known defects despite claims of compliance with service standards, and the consumer's rights under the Consumer Protection Act are upheld.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 17 and 13(1)(c) - Complaint for refund of vehicle cost and compensation for mental agony due to defective vehicle - The complainant, having purchased a vehicle that developed manufacturing defects shortly after purchase, sought redress against the manufacturer and dealer. The court found evidence of persistent defects, and declared that the defendants had failed in their duty to provide goods of satisfactory quality. (Paras 1, 10-18)
(B) Burden of Proof - The legal obligation to prove a defect lies with the complainant, but certain admissions by the opposite parties may relieve the burden in establishing the defects. Non-compliance with expert analysis requirements was not fatal due to the vehicle being in the opposite party's custody. (Paras 15-16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the consumer complaint citing manufacturing defects. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposite party's defenses against claims of defects. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's findings affirming defects of the vehicle. (Para 10 , 11 , 18) |
1. This complaint has been filed under S.17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.15,97,109 towards the cost of the car, a sum of Rs.10,00,000 towards compensation for mental agony, a sum of Rs.5,00,000 towards deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.50,000.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:
The complainant was impressed with the attractive advertisement of the second opposite party for promoting the sales of New Mahindra XUV 500 R FWD W6 HEO manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The sales personnel at their office, during personal visit confirmed the efficiency given in the advertisement. The complainant wanted to purchase the said vehicle for his personal and family use. The total cost of the vehicle including taxes comes to Rs.13,39,689. Hence he paid the cost of the vehicle in the following manner:
The balance amount of Rs.7,50,000 which includes meeting of Road Tax, Registration Charges and Insurance Premium, was financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd., Anna Nagar Branch, which is the another sister concern of the 1st opposite party.
The complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on 9.5.2016, and the said vehicle was registered with Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai for a sum of Rs.12,86,955. The policy is valid from 4.5.2016 to 3.5.2017. The said vehicle was duly Registered with Assistant Registering Authority, RTO North, Chennai - 99 on 5.5.2016 with Regn. No. TN 05 BE 4171. In the Registration certificate necessary hypothecation endorsement was entered in favour of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.
When the vehicle was taken delivery on 9.5.2016, one tyre was found in punctured condition. It was brought to the knowledge of the second opposite party and the same was duly rectified in nearby local workshop. Further the complainant also found some unfinished work relating to the body of the vehicle, viz. Front Bumper, driver seat door and front bonnet. The complainant was requested to bring the vehicle for repair to the 2nd opposite party showroom. While so on 18.5.2016 besides the above defects, the complainant gave eight major complaints to the 2nd opposite party and the following defects are admittedly manufacturing defects, viz. (a) Noise occurrence during gear changing (b) Noise due to improper fitting of doors and accessories (c) Rear AC vent was in broken condition (d) Ignition - Key operation was not functioning. At the time of handing over the vehicle, one Mr. Shankarraja, Relationship Manager assured that defects would be rectified along with wheel replacement, but the same was not done. While so on 24.5.2016 he had taken the vehicle to Madurai. In the midway, due to heat indication lamp glowing, the vehicle stopped, the complainant informed the same to the customer care of the opposite party. Thereafter the vehicle was taken by M/s. Susee Automobiles at Madurai to attend all the problems relating to the vehicle, for which the complainant paid Rs.2,000 towards towing charges also. In Madurai the complainant contacted Mr. Baskaran of M/s. Susee Automobiles to attend all the problems relating to the vehicle. However, he had attended the heat indication issue only. Further he confirmed that the coolant leakage was due to manufacturing fault and required replacement of necessary spares. Therefore, the complainant was forced to stay at Madurai upto 26.5.2016.
After reaching Chennai, the complainant met the 2nd opposite party Manager R. Maran and also the 1st opposite party and requested them to replace the vehicle, but the same was not considered. The vehicle was kept at Madurai till 8.6.2016 and they have attended only the heat indication issue as per th
