Frequent Repairs Alone Do Not Establish Manufacturing Defect In Vehicle, NCDRC Allows Appeal Filed By Skoda Volkswagen India

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench of Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) held that frequent repairs or visits to a workshop alone do not establish an inherent manufacturing defect in a vehicle. Brief Facts: Mr Anuj Gupta (“Complainant) purchased a 'Volkswagen Vento Highline' car from M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 11,88,900/-. The vehicle was frequently taken to Volkswagen Chandigarh's workshop for servicing. The Complainant alleged dissatisfaction with the service and claimed that the car had manufacturing defects. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the State Commission and filed a consumer complaint against Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. (“Skoda”) and Volkswagen Chandigarh. The State Commission appointed Punjab Engineering College as a technical expert and later directed Skoda and Volkswagen Chandigarh to refund Rs. 8,91,675/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission, Skoda filed an appeal in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), New Delhi. Skoda argued that the issues were due to normal wear and tear, given that the car had been extensively used. It contended that all repairs were carried out as per warranty conditions and that the Complainant accepted the vehicle after repairs. Skoda also argued that a manufacturing defect is more severe than ordinary defects and renders a car inoperable. It argued that the car could not have been driven for 1,60,000 kms if it had a manufacturing defect. It further argued that its relationship with Volkswagen Chandigarh was that of 'Principal-to-Principal' and it can't be held liable for any deficiencies in service by the workshop. Observations by the NCDRC: The NCDRC noted that the vehicle had been extensively used for nearly three years and covered 1,60,376 kilometers as on the date it was last brought to the workshop. Further, it held that frequent repairs or repeated visits to a workshop alone do not establish an inherent manufacturing defect requiring the replacement of the vehicle or a refund of its cost. A vehicle covered under warranty entitles the owner only to the replacement of defective parts as per the terms of the warranty policy, not the replacement of the entire vehicle. The NCDRC noted that the procedure for addressing complaints alleging a manufacturing defect is outlined under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”). If a defect cannot be determined without proper analysis or testing, the District Commission must obtain a sealed sample of the goods and refer it to an appropriate laboratory for examination. The Act defines an "appropriate laboratory" under Section 2(1)(i) as one recognized by the Central or State Government or established under law for conducting tests to determine defects in goods. The NCDRC noted that the vehicle was lying dismantled in the workshop for nearly two years before the examination. Given this prolonged period of inactivity and disassembly, it was held that it can't be expected to have an accurate assessment of whether the engine, gearbox, or mechatronics had any manufacturing defects. Further, the NCDRC noted that the report from Punjab Engineering College merely stated that the vehicle "may" have a manufacturing defect due to unresolved issues since purchase. Therefore, the NCDRC held that that the Complainant failed to conclusively establish the existence of a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Further, it was held that the State Commission's decision was based on an incorrect appreciation of evidence and a misapplication of settled law. Consequently, the NCDRC allowed the appeal filed by Skoda and set aside the order of the State Commission. Case Title: Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Lt vs Anuj Gupta and Anr. Case Number: FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/258/2022 Advocate for the Appellant: Ms Ekta Bhasin Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Siddharth Mittal, Mr Sumit Sharma with Mr Anuj Gupta and Ms Aditi Srivastava Date of Judgment: 28/02/2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Frequent Repairs Alone Do Not Establish Manufacturing Defect In Vehicle, NCDRC Allows Appeal Filed By Skoda Volkswagen India

Smita Singh

Tags