NCDRC Rules Onus Of Manufacturing Defect On Complainant
NCDRC Rules Onus Of Manufacturing Defect On Complainant
Cites a previous case to pass the verdict
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that the burden of proof to prove a defect is on the manufacturing party.
The bench of AVM J. Rajendra stated that an expert report was required to prove the defect.
The case:
The complainant purchased a Nissan Sunny XL Car from Maharaja Auto Wheels (dealer), manufactured by Nissan Motors India for Rs.8,18,354.
He encountered several issues with the car, including 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 the defects, no resolution was provided.
The complainant filed a case with the district forum, seeking a refund of ₹ 9,17,680, the purchase value of the car, along with interest, ₹ 50,000 as compensation and litigation costs, deficient service in selling a defective car, and causing him agony.
The forum allowed the complaint, directing the dealer and the manufacturer to either replace the car with a new one or refund ₹ 8,18,354 along with 9 percent annual interest from the date of purchase until payment. They were ordered to pay litigation expenses of ₹ 2,000 to the complainant.
Aggrieved by the forum's order, the dealer and the manufacturer appealed before the State Commission of Punjab, which overturned the DCDRC's order.
Thereafter, the complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
The dealer acknowledged that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from them and brought it in for service after noticing the issue. The vehicle was under warranty, and all reported issues were rectified free of charge.
The manufacturer contested the allegations, stating that the defects in the car were addressed and corrected. He argued that there was no direct consumer relationship between the complainant and the manufacturer, making the complaint against them invalid. He refuted claims of manufacturing defects and asserted that all necessary after-sales services were provided. The dealer and the manufacturer claimed that there was no deficient service and requested the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The Commission observed 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, the problems remained unresolved.
While modifying the district forum's order, the Commission observed there were no major defects, particularly in the engine. The minor defects such as the auto locking system and wheel balancing, were repaired. The only other issue was the peeling of paint, which could have various causes and did not indicate a manufacturing defect.
The 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.
It cited the ruling in the Mercedes Benz India Private Ltd Vs. Revathi Giri & Ors case, wherein it was held that an inherent manufacturing defect had to be established through expert opinion. The vehicle was inspected by an authorized laboratory or authority to determine a manufacturing defect. Without that, the conclusion about inherent manufacturing defects was speculative and could not be sustained.
The Commission noted that the complainant did not procure an expert opinion to substantiate the manufacturing defect claim. The car's purchase price refund was feasible only if significant manufacturing defects impacting the vehicle's functioning were proven. The burden was on the complainant to prove these through an expert opinion.
Since the complainant's contention regarding manufacturing defects was not established, the National Commission upheld the State Commission's order and dismissed the revision petition.
