Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6733
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice Sunita Yadav, PRESIDENT, Dr. Srikant Pandey, MEMBER
Sanjay Panchal – Appellant
Versus
Sanghi Brothers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Disputes Redressal - Appeal No. 935/2017
For the Appellant: Shri Sandeep Guru
For the Respondents: Shri J.S. Parmar, Shri Lalit Gupta
Manufacturing defects in consumer goods must be substantiated by expert evidence; without adequate proof, complaints can be dismissed.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Deficiency in service - Appellant purchased a Tata Super AC vehicle, claimed manufacturing defects and sought remedy from the District Commission, which was dismissed on grounds of lack of evidence - The court ruled that the complainant failed to prove manufacturing defects, hence, the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 2, 3, 9)
(B) Evidentiary burden - Complainant must provide expert evidence to substantiate claims of defects, failing which the complaint may be dismissed, showing the importance of adequate proof in consumer disputes. (Paras 3, 9)
Facts of the case:
Complaint regarding a vehicle purchased by the appellant that developed problems was dismissed by the District Commission for lack of evidence to support claims of defects despite the complaint being raised within the warranty period.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed as the appellant could not demonstrate the existence of a manufacturing defect, and the vehicle had been used extensively without issues.
Issues: Whether the appellant qualified as a 'consumer' under the Act and whether the defects claimed were substantiated by adequate evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that identification of manufacturing defects requires credible expert evidence, which was lacking in this case, thus endorsing the dismissal by the District Commission.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's complaint concerns a vehicle defect. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents argue usage negates consumer status. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the complainant must prove service deficiency. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. court observed the absence of proof led to case dismissal. (Para 8) |
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 the light of the fact that the
