The necessity of an expert report to establish a manufacturing defect in a vehicle under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, was affirmed, dismissing the complaint for lack of proof.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Complaint has been filed before this Commission by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No. 1 to 6 and have prayed for the following reliefs:-

i. Direct the Defendants to refund the amount is Rs. 61,25,379/- (Sixty One Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Nine only) paid towards the purchase, logistics, servicing/repair of the car along with interest on loan being paid by the Complainant.

ii. Direct the Defendants to pay damages amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- for the negligence on and for jeopardizing the life and limb of the Complainant, breaching contractual duties, deficiency in services, involving in unfair trade practices for falsely representing that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade, when they were substandard/deficient.

iii.Direct the Defendants to compensate the Complainant with a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs Rupees) for the intentionally causing damage/harm to the mental peace of the Complainant, inflicting mental agony and harassment of the Complainant.

iv. Cost of the litigation may be awarded in favour of the Complainant.

v. Any other relief / reliefs which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may be passed in favor of the Complainant and against the opposite party.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are that the Complainant purchased a “Volvo CX60 D5” car from the dealer/Opposite Party No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 59,90,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Nine Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) alongwith Rs. 89,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Nine Thousand Only) towards logistics on 23.11.2020. On 15.09.2021, the car broke down again, and it was found that the engine was not cranking due to fuel adulteration. Thereafter, the fuel rail and one injector were replaced, and the car was returned on 22.10.2021. The Opposite Party No.1 waived off 50% of the total repair cost to be paid by the Complainant towards the replaced parts. On 10.12.2021, the car broke down again and was not starting. The Opposite Party No. 1, on 16.12.2021, again informed the Complainant that injector nos. 3 & 4 were found to be faulty due to fuel adulteration, which caused the said breakdown on 10.12.2021. The Complainant inquired about the same problem arising twice within 2 months, and was again offered a waiver of 50% on the expenses of the repair on 22.12.2021, with the Complainant having to pay Rs. 46,369/- (Rupees Forty-Six Thousand Three-Hundred and Sixty-Nine Only). The Opposite Party No. 1 refused to share the certified lab report with the Complainant regarding the fuel adulterant causing the aforesaid problems in the car, leading the Complainant to believe that the car in question had a manufacturing defect. Aggrieved by the aforesaid submissions and contentions, the Complainants have approached this Commission.

3. Written Statement has been filed by the Opposite Party No. 1, denying all the contentions and allegations of the Complainants. It is submitted that the car in question had been in an accident on 29.01.2021, after which the Complainant sent the vehicle to the service center of the Opposite Party No. 1. Further, it is submitted that the Opposite Party No. 1 only paid an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thous