The court ruled that a manufacturing defect requires substantial evidence; observed minor issues in vehicles do not justify replacement without such evidence.

ORDER

JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1. The petitioner had earlier appeared in person and on 25.08.2025 we had recorded the following order:

“The complainant is the petitioner who had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Celerio vehicle in the year 2014 and according to him the vehicle had inherent defects particularly the brakes of the vehicle that were reported to be out of order but in spite of the promise to rectify the defects, the same were not attended to nor any other steps were taken as a result whereof CC/60/2016 was filed. This complaint was allowed by the District Commission on 16th July, 2019 directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle of the petitioner with a similar model and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost.

The replacement was challenged in appeal by the manufacturer and the State Commission vide impugned order dated 20th October, 2021 modified the order by substituting the replacement of the vehicle with a direction to pay Rs.70,000/- for mental agony and Rs.30,000/- as cost. Thus, the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said modification has approached this Commission by filing this revision petition urging that the order of the District Commission should be restored.

He has also stated that an application has been moved praying for allowing the petitioner to dispose of the vehicle. The said application does not seem to be on record. In the event any such application has been filed the same may be traced out and may be placed on record. There is a paucity of time for hearing and disposing of this matter but in view of the short nature of the controversy relating to the allegations of the defects in the vehicle, let the petition be placed for final hearing at 2.00 pm on 07.01.2026.”

2. The office has reported that there is no application filed by the petitioner/ complainant praying for any order to dispose off the vehicle. Be that as it may, we have proceeded to hear the matter finally.

3. The petition was argued by Ms. Sonal Khattri, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner/ complainant and by Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.1. We have heard the matter at length and have also perused the records. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has provided us with a copy of the service history of the vehicle up to date. The mileage recorded in the last service record dated 15.01.2024 is 69686 kms.

4. There is no one present for the respondent no. 2/ dealer. It may be pointed out that the complaint (CC/60/2016) was allowed by the District Commission, whereby it was held that there was a defect in the vehicle relating to the brake system, the calliper assembly whereof was defective and since the same was not rectified, the vehicle could not be appropriately utilised, which amounted to a manufacturing defect. Accordingly, the District Commission directed the replacement of the vehicle which the complainant was entitled to receive from the opposite party no. 2 to be provided through the opposite party no. 1. The complainant was directed to return the vehicle in question on such delivery. A sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs was also awarded.

5. The manufacturer namely, M/s. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited went up in appeal (FA/852/2019). The dealer did not file any appeal, but was arrayed as the second respondent in the appeal. The State Commission came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of a manufacturing defect as such, and c