No Proof Of Manufacturing Defect: NCDRC Refuses Replacement Of 2014 Maruti Suzuki Celerio

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), dismissed a revision petition seeking replacement of a 2014 Maruti Suzuki Celerio, holding that replacement is not an automatic remedy in the absence of proof of an inherent manufacturing defect. The Commission observed that the alleged braking defect was subsequently rectified, no expert evidence was produced to establish an irreparable manufacturing defect, and the vehicle had already been used extensively, having crossed 70,000 km. In these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the State Commission was found to be adequate. Brief Facts The complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Celerio in 2014 and alleged that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects in the braking system. Despite repeated complaints to the manufacturer and the dealer, the issue was allegedly not resolved, prompting the complainant to approach the District Consumer Commission. The District Commission held that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect and directed replacement of the car along with ₹10,000 each towards compensation and litigation costs. Aggrieved, Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. approached the State Consumer Commission, which found no evidence of a manufacturing defect and substituted the replacement direction with an award of ₹70,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹30,000 towards litigation costs. Challenging this modification, the complainant filed a revision petition before the NCDRC seeking restoration of the replacement order. Arguments of Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. The manufacturer contended that the service history showed the vehicle had covered over 70,000 km, indicating that it was functional and in continuous use. It was further submitted that the dealer had already complied with the State Commission's order by depositing ₹1,00,000 with the District Commission. No expert opinion or technical evidence was placed on record to establish that the alleged braking issue constituted an inherent manufacturing defect. Decision of the NCDRC The NCDRC held that the findings of the State Commission that there was no manufacturing defect per se were justified. It observed that a partial failure in the braking system, which was later rectified, even if it required multiple service visits, did not warrant replacement of the vehicle. The Commission reiterated that a manufacturing defect must be fundamental and beyond repair, and replacement is not an automatic consequence of every defect. While noting that expert opinion is not mandatory in every case, the Bench clarified that such evidence becomes necessary where the nature of the defect cannot be determined without proper technical analysis. In view of the rectification of the defect, absence of expert evidence establishing an inherent manufacturing defect, and the extensive usage of the vehicle over several years, the Commission found no illegality or irregularity in the State Commission's order and dismissed the revision petition. Case Title: Vinay Kumar Mishra v. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. Revision Petition No.: NC/RP/403/2022 Click Here To Read/Download Order

No Proof Of Manufacturing Defect: NCDRC Refuses Replacement Of 2014 Maruti Suzuki Celerio

Apoorva Pandita

Tags