Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6272
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT, MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
MR. RANJIT KUMAR KAMAT – Appellant
Versus
SH. AKHIL DEWAN – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 432/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rupesh Kumar Sinha
For the Respondents: Mr. Shreshtha Kumar
The complainant must provide expert evidence to substantiate claims of manufacturing defects; without such proof, allegations are insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency in service - Complainant alleged manufacturing defect in vehicle based on repeated failures; court found no expert evidence provided and dismissed complaint - Service adequacy upheld based on detailed inspection and rebuttal of claims. (Paras 9-19)
(B) Burden of proof - The onus to prove manufacturing defect lies with the complainant; failure to produce expert testimony results in lack of evidentiary support for claims. (Paras 12-15)
Facts of the case:
Complainant purchased a motorbike, faced repeated engine issues, alleged manufacturing defects after attempted service; respondants disputed claims stressing vehicle was adequately serviced.
Findings of Court:
The District Commission found no manufacturing defect; appellant failed to substantiate claims with expert evidence.
Issues: Primary concern was whether the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect and if service was adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without expert evidence, allegations of manufacturing defect could not be upheld; service performence adequacy was established.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case regarding the complaint processing. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding vehicle defects. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. observations and assessments made by the court on service deficiencies. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 15 , 17) |
| 4. emphasis on the burden of proof for manufacturing defects. (Para 12) |
| 5. final judgment dismissing the appeal. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“Complainant purchased a Bajaj Pulsor Motor Bike on 04.11.11 for a surn of Rs 72,200/- from OP-1, dealer of OP- 2.
The case of the cornplainant is that on 18.11.11, he left his bike at the workshop of OP-1 for first service. After service, complainant took the bike and paid a sum of Rs 590/- though it was supposed to be a free service Complainant after taking the bike was going to meet his sister who was residing at Greater Noida When complainant hardly covered 3-4 Kms from the workshop, the bike suddenly stopped. Thereafter the bike was somehow pulled to the workshop of OP-1 and there the same was checked by one Mr. Pawan Kumar, technician and it was informed to complainant that engine of his bike has seized as the bike suffered from manufacturing defect and the engine of the bike has to be replaced by another engine. But since it was late in the night, complainant was informed to take the bike next day after changing the engine. However, when complainant went to receive the bike on 19.11.11, it was transpired that the engine has not been changed and when complainant brought this matter to the notice of OP-1, he was threatened and the police as called. However, police and the officials of OP-1 persuaded complainant to take the delivery of bike and further assured complainant that in case bike suffered from any problem, the due service would be provided.
It is further stated that ton 22.11.11 when complainant was coming to his office, engine of the bike stopped in the running traffic and got started after lot of efforts. The bike was taken to the workshop of OP-1 and the same was repaired with the assurance that there will not be any problem in future. Again the bike started giving trouble and was taken to the workshop on 25.11.11. The bike was again taken to the workshop on 29.11.11. The engine of the bike again stopped on 13.12.11 and the bike was taken to the workshop the same was repaired. On 25.12.11 again problem started with the bike. However, when the bike was taken to workshop, complainant was not entertained on the ground that it was Sunday. Complainant again got the problem on 12.01.12. Again on 19.01.12 when complainant was coming to his office, the engine of the bike suddenly stopped. This bike was taken to the workshop on 20.01.12. It is submitted that in fact the bike suffered from manufacturing defect. The request of complainant to change the engine was turned down. Complainant was left with not option but to serve legal notice to OP on 28.01.12 but OP did not responded. It is stated that it is a case of deficiency in service. Complainant has sought refund of Rs.72,200/- alongwith interest and also sought compensation and litigation expenses.
OP in reply took the plea that there was no manufacturing defect in the bike. The vehicle of complainant is in good condition and under warranty The engine of the vehicle is in good condition and also condition of vehicle depends upon the driving skill of the driver. There is all possibility that due to frequent change of gear and using clutch and accelerator simultaneously, engine of the vehicle get heated frequently. It is on account of negligence driving by the complainant.
It is stated that at the time of first service, the bike had covered 925 Kms and best service was provided during first service. It is denied that there was any problem with the engine or it was ever stated that the engine is defective and the same is to be replaced. In fact the engine in the vehicle is in perfectly good condition and co
