Haryana State Commission Holds Mahindra And Mahindra Liable For Failure To Rectify Manufacturing Defects In Brand New TUV

Smita Singh

11 Jun 2024 11:30 AM GMT

  • Haryana State Commission Holds Mahindra And Mahindra Liable For Failure To Rectify Manufacturing Defects In Brand New TUV

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of S.C. Kaushik (Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Mahindra and Mahindra against the order of the Sonepat District Commission. The bench observed that there were several manufacturing defects in the car manufactured by Mahindra which were not duly rectified even after several attempts made by the car...

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of S.C. Kaushik (Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Mahindra and Mahindra against the order of the Sonepat District Commission. The bench observed that there were several manufacturing defects in the car manufactured by Mahindra which were not duly rectified even after several attempts made by the car owner.

    Brief Facts:

    The Complainant purchased a brand-new Mahindra TUV Black car from the P.P. Automotive Pvt. Ltd (“Retailer') but encountered persistent issues with the vehicle's performance which included problems with race and pick-up. Despite multiple service visits and assurances from the service centre officials, the issues persisted. There were problems with the alternator and subsequent engine issues which led to overheating and abnormal noises. The Complainant sent legal notices to Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (“Mahindra”) and the Retailer. He also requested for a replacement of the vehicle, but no satisfactory resolution was reached. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat ('District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Mahindra and the Retailer.

    Mahindra contended that the vehicle was running successfully and attributed the reported issues to normal wear and tear. It argued that the extensive use of the vehicle, as evidenced by the odometer reading of close to 50,000 km within a year, indicated its good condition. The Retailer maintained that all complaints were duly addressed, with replacements and repairs carried out as required. It argued that the Complainant expressed satisfaction after each visit

    The District Commission ruled in favour of the Complainant and directed Mahindra to replace the vehicle with a new one upon payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. Dissatisfied with the decision, Mahindra approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission”). It reiterated that the reported issues were attributable to regular wear and tear while stating the extensive use of the vehicle as evidence of its good condition.

    Observations by the State Commission:

    The State Commission noted that the vehicle was inoperative from August 19, 2016, to August 27, 2016, due to an alternator issue which prevented the vehicle from starting. Following this repair, additional problems emerged such as engine overheating, coolant leakage from the radiator, under-body coolant leakage, and other related issues. Despite attempts by Mahindra and the Retailer to address these concerns by replacing parts such as the radiator, the engine began emitting abnormal noises from under the body.

    The State Commission held that the argument put forth by Mahindra, claiming the absence of manufacturing defects, lacked legal merit. The Complainant purchased a new vehicle, yet encountered problems shortly before its first free service, followed by recurring issues necessitating multiple visits to the service centre. The prolonged period during which the vehicle was inoperative further underscored the severity of the defects. Therefore, it held that it was inconceivable that a consumer would repeatedly visit a service centre with a brand-new vehicle unless significant issues were present.

    Consequently, the State Commission held that the District Commission appropriately directed Mahindra to replace the defective vehicle with a new one. The appeal was dismissed.

    Case Title: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs Kuldeep Singh and Anr.

    Case Number: First Appeal No. 1204 of 2017

    Advocate for the Appellant (Mahindra and Mahindra): Shri Vaibhav Narang

    Advocate for the Respondent: None

    Date of Order: 20th May 2024


    Next Story