Burden Of Proof To Prove Manufacturing Defect Is On The Complainant: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the burden of proof to prove a manufacturing defect is on the party who makes it. Additionally, it was held that an expert report is required to prove a manufacturing defect. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased a Nissan Sunny XL Car from Maharaja Auto Wheels/ dealer, manufactured by Nissan Motors India/manufacturer, for Rs. 8,18,354. He encountered several issues with the car, such as wheel balancing problems, center locking malfunctions, and paint crust removal at the bottom of the windows on both sides. Despite numerous email representations to the dealer and manufacturer regarding these defects, no resolution was provided. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a case with the District Forum, seeking a refund of Rs. 9,17,680, the purchase value of the car, along with interest, Rs. 50,000 in compensation, and litigation costs for the deficient service in selling a defective car and causing him agony and difficulties. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the dealer and the manufacturer to either replace the complainant's car with a new one or refund Rs. 8,18,354 along with 9% annual interest from the date of purchase until payment. Additionally, the opposite parties were ordered to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000 to the complainant. Aggrieved by the District Forum's order, the dealer and the manufacturer appealed to the State Commission of Punjab. The State Commission allowed the appeal and overturned the District Forum's order. Consequently, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission. Contentions of the Opposite Party The dealer acknowledged that the complainant had purchased the car from them and had brought it in for service after noticing some problems. The vehicle was under warranty, and all reported issues were rectified free of charge. The manufacturer contested the allegations, stating that any defects in the car were addressed and corrected. The manufacturer argued that there was no direct consumer relationship between the complainant and the manufacturer, making the complaint against them invalid. They refuted claims of manufacturing defects and asserted that all necessary after-sales services were provided for the identified issues. The dealer and the manufacturer claimed that there was no deficient service and requested the dismissal of the complaint with costs. Observations by the National Commission The National Commission observed whether the issues in question constituted “manufacturing defects” and, if established, whether the complainant was entitled to a vehicle replacement or reimbursement of Rs. 8,18,354, along with costs and compensation. It was noted that the recurring problems included the central locking system not functioning properly, wheel balancing, and repainting issues. Despite multiple attempts by the dealer and manufacturer, these problems remained unresolved. The State Commission, while modifying the District Forum's order, observed that there were no major defects, particularly in the engine. The minor defects cited, such as the auto locking system and wheel balancing, had been repaired. The only other issue was the peeling of paint, which could have various causes and did not indicate a manufacturing defect. The core issue of establishing a manufacturing defect required the complainant to approach a recognized government authority for inspection under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. In the case of Mercedes Benz India Private Ltd Vs. Smt. Revathi Giri & Ors, it was held that an inherent manufacturing defect had to be established through expert opinion. The vehicle had to be inspected by an authorized laboratory or authority to determine if it suffered from a manufacturing defect. Without such an examination, conclusions about inherent manufacturing defects were speculative and could not be sustained. The commission observed that the complainant did not procure an expert opinion to substantiate the manufacturing defect claim. Furthermore, the car's purchase price refund was only feasible if significant manufacturing defects impacting the vehicle's functioning were proven. The burden was on the complainant to prove these defects through an expert opinion. Hence, the complainant's contention regarding manufacturing defects was not established. The National Commission upheld the State Commission's order and dismissed the revision petition. Case Title: Randhir Singh Vs. M/S. Maharaja Auto Wheels (P) Ltd & Anr. Case Number: R.P. No. 3149-3150/2017 Click Here To Read Order

Burden Of Proof To Prove Manufacturing Defect Is On The Complainant: NCDRC

Ayushi Rani

Tags