Vehicle Replacement Order for 'Manufacturing Defect' Overturned Without Expert Evidence: State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - 2025-01-09

No Vehicle Replacement Without Expert Proof of Manufacturing Defect, Rules State Consumer Commission

Jaipur, India – The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has overturned a District Commission's order that directed Hero Motocorp Ltd. to replace a customer's motorcycle or refund its price. The appellate body ruled that a "manufacturing defect" cannot be presumed merely from repeated repairs and that a claim for vehicle replacement must be substantiated by expert evidence, which was absent in this case.

The bench, comprising Presiding Member (Judicial) Atul Kumar Chatterjee and Member Sanjay Tak, modified the original order, instead directing Hero Motocorp to repair the vehicle free of cost and upheld the compensation awarded for service deficiency.

Case Background: A Troublesome Ride

The case originated from a complaint filed by Lalit Gehlot, who purchased a new Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle for ₹53,290. Soon after the purchase, he began experiencing persistent issues, including engine noise, oil leakage, and overheating. Despite multiple visits to the authorized service center, where several parts like the cylinder, piston rings, and timing chain were replaced, the problems continued.

Gehlot took his vehicle for service on at least four separate occasions within a short period (from 2449 km to 3151 km on the odometer). Frustrated with the recurring issues, he filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bikaner, alleging a manufacturing defect and demanding a replacement or a full refund.

The District Commission ruled in his favor, directing Hero Motocorp to either provide a new motorcycle or refund the full purchase price of ₹53,290. It also awarded ₹10,000 for mental anguish and ₹5,000 for litigation costs. Aggrieved by this decision, Hero Motocorp filed an appeal before the State Commission.

Arguments Before the State Commission

Appellant's Contentions (Hero Motocorp Ltd.): Hero Motocorp argued that the District Commission erred in concluding there was a manufacturing defect without any report from a qualified mechanical expert or laboratory. They contended that the repairs and part replacements were carried out promptly under warranty to ensure customer satisfaction and did not constitute an admission of a fundamental manufacturing flaw. The company cited several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. , to emphasize that replacement of a vehicle is a major relief that requires irrefutable proof of an inherent defect, which the complainant failed to provide.

Respondent's Contentions (Lalit Gehlot): Lalit Gehlot, through his counsel, defended the District Commission's order. He argued that the sheer frequency of repairs and the nature of the parts replaced—many related to the core engine assembly—within the first few months of purchase were circumstantial evidence strong enough to infer a manufacturing defect. The fact that the bike broke down approximately six times within the warranty period for similar issues demonstrated a deficiency in service and product quality, justifying the replacement order.

Commission's Reasoning and Judgment

The State Commission carefully analyzed the arguments and the legal precedents. The bench observed that while the customer faced repeated issues, the law sets a high bar for proving a "manufacturing defect" that warrants vehicle replacement.

The judgment noted:

"The complainant has admittedly not presented evidence from any mechanical expert. An affidavit from a person claiming to be a motorcycle mechanic for five years, without any proof of technical education or expertise, cannot be considered as expert testimony."

Relying on established principles laid down by the National Commission and the Supreme Court, the Commission found that replacing parts under warranty to rectify issues is standard practice and does not automatically prove a manufacturing defect. The precedents cited by Hero Motocorp consistently held that without expert evidence, the appropriate relief is the free-of-cost replacement of defective parts, not the replacement of the entire vehicle.

Final Order and Its Implications

The State Commission partially allowed Hero Motocorp's appeal and set aside the portion of the District Commission's order requiring the motorcycle's replacement or refund.

The final modified order directs Hero Motocorp to: 1. Repair the complainant's motorcycle within two months by replacing all necessary parts free of charge to ensure it is fully functional and to the customer's satisfaction. 2. Pay the compensation of ₹10,000 and litigation costs of ₹5,000 as originally ordered by the District Commission, with 9% annual interest if not paid within one month.

Crucially, the Commission granted liberty to Lalit Gehlot. If he remains unsatisfied after the repairs, he is free to obtain a report from a qualified expert to prove a manufacturing defect and file a fresh complaint. The time spent in the current litigation would be excluded for limitation purposes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.