In cases of persistent manufacturing defects evidenced by repeated repairs and major component failure within the warranty period, expert opinion under the Consumer Protection Act is not mandatory to establish product liability.

JUDGMENT

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

1. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that Kanaram Jat / the respondent no. 1/the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) on 13.05.2013 purchased a Scorpio SUV bearing registration number RJ-6UB-2829 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the vehicle’) for his personal use from Nagaur Automobiles Private Limited/the respondent no.2/ the opposite party no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the opposite party no. 1’) for total consideration of Rs.12,27,426/- including registration charges and insurance charges. The opposite party no 1 has assured the complainant about good technology used in the manufacturing of the vehicle. The engine of the vehicle showed problem within 2/3 months after purchase and thereafter the vehicle was checked by the opposite party no 1. The complainant left the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite party no 1 on 16.09.2013 and the opposite party no. 1 after repair of the vehicle handed over to the complainant on 20.09.2013 with assurance that the defects have been rectified. The engine of the vehicle again after 2 /3 months developed problem and the complainant left the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite party no 1 on 27.12.2013 which remained there till 21.01.2014. The opposite party no 1 again assured the complainant about rectification of the fault in the engine. The opposite party no 1 installed a separator in the engine of the vehicle. The engine of the vehicle again broke down in the month of September, 2014 and the complainant took the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite party no 1. The complainant on asking of the opposite party no 1 left the vehicle in workshop for checking. The complainant visited workshop of the after 5/7 days and requested for providing permanent solution for faulty engine. The opposite party no 1 assured for replacement of the engine. The opposite party no 1 kept the vehicle for 60 days and thereafter handed over the vehicle to the complainant after replacing the engine. However the vehicle broke down for many times and on 24.12.2014 after running for few days. The vehicle remained stationed at the workshop situated at Godhra till 31.12.2014 due to faulty air vacuum tube of the vehicle. The vehicle also used to get jammed and the complainant submitted the vehicle to the respondent no 3/the opposite party no 2/ B. Mangatram & Company (hereinafter referred to as “the opposite party no 2”) on 05.01.2015 for repair and since then vehicle is lying in the workshop of the opposite party no 2. The vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defects. The opposite parties sold defective vehicle to the complainant. The complainant had paid the instalments of the loan amount to HDFC Bank regularly. The complainant being aggrieved filed present consumer complaint bearing C.C. No. 15 of 2015 tiled as Kanaram Jat V Nagaur Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and others before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) with following prayers:-

a) Direct the Opposite Parties to provide new Vehicle of same model to the Complainant in place of defective sold vehicle Scorpio, S.U.V. bearing Registration No. RJ-6UB-2829 OR to refund the purchase amount of the Vehicle/Insurance/Registration etc. i.e. Rs.12,27,426/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Six Only) along with interest.

b) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) to the Complainant for financial and mental losses caused to him due to their negligent act and deficiency in