Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 225
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice Sunita Yadav, PRESIDENT, Dr. Srikant Pandey, MEMBER
Sanjay Panchal – Appellant
Versus
Sanghi Brothers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Complaint Case | 77/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sandeep Guru
For the Respondents: Shri J.S. Parmar, Shri Lalit Gupta
The court confirmed that without expert evidence demonstrating a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the District Commission's dismissal of the complaint stood justified under consumer protection law.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Definition of 'consumer' - Appeal challenging dismissal of complaint regarding manufacturing defect in vehicle purchased for livelihood - District Commission found no evidence of manufacturing defect, resulting in dismissal of complaint - Defendants argued no deficiency citing improper use by complainant. (Paras 2, 3, 9)
(B) Appellate Review - Appellate court not to interfere unless the findings of fact are perverse or against settled principles of law - The complainant’s lack of expert evidence underscored the validity of the District Commission's order. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a Tata vehicle for livelihood; experienced issues shortly after purchase; claimed deficiencies in service by the defendants who attributed issues to misuse.
Findings of Court:
The complainant failed to prove the vehicle's manufacturing defect.
Issues: Whether the complainant qualifies as a consumer and if the complaints regarding manufacturing defects were substantiated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled against the appeal, citing lack of expert evidence proving the vehicle had a manufacturing defect which justified the District Commission's dismissal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal against dismissal of consumer complaint. (Para 2) |
| 2. details of respondents' objections and their defense. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments from both sides on the dismissal order. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court observations on the lack of proof for manufacturing defect. (Para 8 , 9) |
Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.
This appeal by the appellant/complainant-Sanjay Panchal (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 28.4.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 77/2014, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.
2. Briefly put, the facts of the case, as narrated by the complainant, are that on 29.5.2013 the complainant has purchased a Tata Super AC Loading vehicle, for earning his livelihood. Few days after purchase of the vehicle, some problem developed in the gear box and clutch plate of the vehicle and despite being the vehicle within the guaranty period, Rs.4,000/- has been charged for clutch plate and Rs.800/- for labour charges. Despite that due to manufacturing defect, the problem in the vehicle persisted, when complaint regarding the same made to opposite party No.1, they tried to open the engine, the complainant resisted it and demanded a new vehicle in place of the defected vehicle.
Therefore, alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached District Commission by filing the aforesaid complaint, seeking relief.
3. The respondents No. 1 and 2/opposite parties No. 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection before the District Commission and in their reply submitted that the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose, therefore, the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . It has also been stated in the reply that the defects in the vehicle, as pointed out were caused due to it being driven by an untrained driver, overloading and use of adulterated diesel. After inspection of the vehicle by a Mechanical Engineer and after its trial, the vehicle found in good condition and informed the complainant but he did not come to collect the vehicle. A letter has also been sent to complainant on 1.4.2014 in this regard but no reply has been received from him. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed
4. Respondent No.3/opposite party No.3 also resisted the complaint and in its reply submitted that as per rules of the Company there is no guarantee/warranty of clutch plate, therefore, the arguments of the complainant that during guarantee period, charges has been taken for changing the clutch plate, has no force and submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of it and the complaint is liable to dismissed.
5. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence filed by the parties, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law. The District Commission has failed to consider the documents and evidence of the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the relief claimed by the complainant be granted in his favour.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 argued that the impugned order is in accordance with the evidence and settled principle of law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect. However, the complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defect by filing report of any expert in this regard. In the absence of any expert opinion that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect, the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint in t
