New Bus Suffers Engine Overheating, Seizure Within 2 Months: Belagavi Consumer Commission Orders Replacement Or Refund

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, comprising President Sanjeev V. Kulkarni and Member Smt. S.K. Kadrollimath, has held Arihant Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Force Motors Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service in relation to a vehicle allegedly suffering from an inherent manufacturing defect.

The Commission held that the complainant had established that the Force Motors Citiline STD Bus, purchased for ₹16 lakh, developed serious problems including engine overheating, coolant leakage and engine seizure within about two months of purchase, despite repairs by the authorised service centre. The Commission also held that the complainant qualified as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as he was using the vehicle to earn his livelihood.

Facts:

The complainant, Mugundappa, a driver by profession and resident of Belagavi, purchased a Force Motors Citiline STD Bus from Arihant Motors Pvt. Ltd., The vehicle was covered by a manufacturer's two-year warranty.

The complainant alleged that after running the vehicle for around 9,000 km within two months, it started developing serious problems, including engine overheating, coolant leakage and engine seizure. The vehicle was taken to the authorised service centre for repairs on 27 May 2024, but the problems allegedly recurred.

On 10 June 2024, the vehicle again developed overheating and engine-related issues and had to be taken to the service centre. The complainant alleged that the vehicle suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect and sought replacement of the vehicle or, alternatively, refund of the purchase amount, along with compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

The dealer and manufacturer denied the allegations, contending that there was no manufacturing defect and that the problems resulted from the complainant's failure to maintain adequate coolant and to follow dashboard warnings.

The manufacturer also disputed the complainant's status as a consumer, arguing that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes, whereas the complainant maintained that he purchased and operated the vehicle himself to earn his livelihood.

Observation and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, including the expert evidence, found that the complainant had established a case of an inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It noted that serious problems, including engine overheating, coolant leakage and engine seizure, arose within about two months of purchase and continued despite repairs. The Commission also held that the complainant qualified as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as he was using the vehicle himself to earn his livelihood.

The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Opposite Parties 1 and 2, jointly and severally, to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle of the same brand. Alternatively, if the vehicle was not replaced, they were directed to refund ₹15 lakh, along with 6% annual interest from the date of purchase. The Commission further awarded ₹10,000 towards mental agony and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The order was directed to be complied with within 45 days.