In a revision petition, the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity; however, a full refund for a defective product is unjustified if the consumer has continued to use the vehicle for a significant period; compensation should instead be appropriately adjusted.

ORDER

A. P. SAHI, J (PRESIDENT)

1. Heard Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Rebello, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.-1 and none has appeared for Respondent No.-2 who has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.01.2024.

2. This is a dispute relating to alleged deficiencies and allegations of manufacturing defect in a Hyundai i10 vehicle that was purchased by the Respondent No.-1 from the Respondent No.-2 Dealer and manufactured by the Petitioner. The purchase was made on 21.01.2012 and within a few days a Complaint was made by the Respondent No.-1 to the Dealer / Respondent No.-2 about a serious problem with the steering wheel that was not rotating smoothly and did not revert back to its normal position after turning left or right. The contention of the Complainant was that inspite of this defect being pointed out the same was not rectified and the Complainant had to repeatedly go to the garage of the Respondent No.-2 several times. It was later on also complained that the car gave a very low mileage of 8.5 kms. / litre which was far below the expected and promised mileage of 20 kms. / litre. The Complainant to support the contention had also relied on two reports obtained from Mr. Manuel Pereira and Mr. Conroy D’Melo who according to the Complainant were qualified experts of the field.

3. The claim was contested before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa being Consumer Complaint No. 31 of 2012. The Complaint was allowed on 28.11.2013 and while recording its findings the District Commission also relied on the admission of the Managing Director of the Respondent No.-2 / Dealer, Mr. Prashant Joshi, who had communicated to the Area Manager of the Manufacturer indicating the defect in the steering system. The findings recorded by the District Commission from Paragraph No. – 18 to 28 are extracted herein under:

“18. An email on record dated the 1st November 2013 sent by the OP No. 1 by Mr. Manu Srivastha who is the area service manager of the company sent to the Manager of the Opposite party no 2, explains that all new i-10 vehicles are fitted with 35A steering column motor (except Astha Version) as compared to 65A steering column motor which was fitted in previous i-10 vehicles, also stating that the customer should be educated into this concept that there is no manufacturing defect. In a further mail on the same day he requested the service team to thoroughly inspect the vehicle and to have a full tank road test for the vehicle for resolution of the mileage problem. In a email on the same day he requested thorough checking and inspection of the vehicle and that all defective parts to be replaced under warranty and requested that he thereafter be informed.

19. Also on record is an email from the Managing Director of Opposite Party No. 2 Mr. Prashant Joshi, written on the same day at 11.40 written to the Area Manager stating "I do not agree with the view of Sharad that the Car steering system works the same way as new i10 cars after modification. I have personally driven car along with customer and Vijay Kamat and found the steering worse than on new modified system. The steering just doesn't come back.".....'

20. Surprisingly after the managing director's email sent on 1st November 2012 to the area manager after taking a drive along with the customer and one Vijay Kumar, admitting there was a problem with the steering admitting that the steering was worse than on a new modified system and that the steering just doesn't