Delhi State Commission Dismisses Appeal Alleging Sale Of Used Car; Holds Expert Evidence Mandatory To Prove Manufacturing Defect

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by a car pur-chaser alleging that a used vehicle had been fraudulently sold to him by M/s T.R. Sawhney Mo-tors Private Limited and Maruti Suzuki India Limited. Upholding the order of the District Commission, the State Commission held that in the absence of an expert report, a plea of manufac-turing defect cannot be sustained and no deficiency in service was made out. Brief Facts The complainant, Manoj Loharia, purchased an SX4 ZXi car manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Opposite Party No. 9) for a price of ₹8,10,525 on 08.04.2011 from M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors Private Limited (Opposite Party No. 1). He was informed that the vehicle was manufac-tured in 2010 but was assured that this would not affect after-sales service. The complainant paid an advance of ₹25,000, and delivery was offered on 10.04.2011. On 03.05.2011, the complainant approached another authorised service centre to avail the first free service after the vehicle had run 899 kilometres, where he was informed that the service records reflected an earlier sale dated 31.05.2010. The vehicle was thereafter serviced following interven-tion by the opposite party dealer. The complainant subsequently availed the second free service on 10.10.2011 and the third free service on 07.04.2012, by which time the vehicle had covered 7,468 kilometres. Alleging that a used or demo vehicle had been fraudulently sold to him and claiming deficiency in service, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Com-mission (Central). The District Commission dismissed the complaint, finding no deficiency in ser-vice. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. Contentions of the Complainant The complainant contended that the District Commission failed to properly appreciate his case that the vehicle sold to him was previously owned. He submitted that he was induced to purchase the vehicle by a purportedly lucrative deal offered on the ground that it was a 2010 model. The com-plainant further alleged that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect, relying on the re-placement of the steering wheel, and claimed that he faced difficulties in availing free services. It was also contended that the District Commission erred in holding that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the cause of action was a continuing one. Contentions of the Opposite Parties M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors, contended that the complainant was informed prior to purchase that the vehicle was a 2010 model. It denied offering any lucrative deal or assuring a refund of ₹12,015 and submitted that the document relied upon by the complainant was invalid. Reliance was placed on the Registration Certificate to demonstrate that the complainant was the first owner of the vehicle, and it was submitted that the odometer reading at the time of delivery indicated that the vehicle was new. The dealer further submitted that the complainant used the vehicle for more than a year, covering 7,468 kilometres, and availed three free services without raising any grievance. The manufacturer, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, contended that it had supplied a new vehicle to the dealer against proper documentation and that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was argued that the complainant failed to produce any expert report to establish a manufacturing defect and that the warranty was valid across India, which the complainant had duly availed. Findings of the Commission The State Commission agreed with the findings of the District Commission and held that no defi-ciency in service was established against the opposite parties. It observed that the Registration Cer-tificate clearly reflected the complainant as the first owner of the vehicle and that he was informed at the time of purchase that the vehicle was manufactured in 2010. The Commission further noted that the complainant had used the vehicle for over a year, covering 7,468 kilometres, and had availed three free services without raising any protest or complaint regarding the performance of the vehicle. With respect to the allegation of manufacturing defect, the Commission observed that the com-plainant had neither sought appointment of an expert nor produced any expert report to establish that the replacement of the steering wheel was attributable to a manufacturing defect. It held that expert evidence is mandatory to establish a manufacturing defect and that, in its absence, the man-ufacturer could not be held liable for deficiency in service. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the State Commission upheld the order of the District Commission and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. Case Title Manoj Loharia v. T.R. Sawhney Motors & Ors., FA No. 143 of 2019 Click Here To ...

Delhi State Commission Dismisses Appeal Alleging Sale Of Used Car; Holds Expert Evidence Mandatory To Prove Manufacturing Defect

Muhammed Razik

Tags