IN RP 780-781 OF 2020 – NCDRC-The general accepted position in law, that onus to prove the manufacturing defect by way of inspection by an expert would lie upon the complainant’s side, cannot be a water tight proposition in all cases: National Consumer forum directs Maruti,authorised dealer to refund purchase amount plus interest for defective Maruti Wagon R car
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member [14.07.2023]

Read More :MarutiSuzuki India Limited v. Ronald D'silva

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 17, 2023: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi while dealing with the issue ofa defective Maruti Wagon R car having been sold to the customer, upheld the State Commission's order but modified it stating that instead of replacing the car, Maruti and the dealer were to refund the purchase amount of Rs.3,97,887 along with interest. They were also asked to pay enhanced litigation costs of Rs20,000 to the customer.

The respondent in this case, RonaldD’Silva, purchased the car from Maruti's dealer on 24-03-2011 for Rs.3,97,887, however, within a few days, the car started having issues. On 04-04-2011 the car broke down after traveling only 3 kms. Ronald contacted Aryan Motors, an authorised agent of Maruti, who informed him that the car had several defects related to the cooling system, thus stating that the car was unfit for use.

The respondent then sent a legal notice to Maruti and the dealer asking them to replace the defective car with a new one but the request was denied stating that there were no manufacturing defects. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint with the District Consumer Forum seeking refund of the purchase amount or a replacement car.

The District Forum upon examining the case found that there were deficiencies in service and manufacturing defects, hence ordered Maruti and the dealer to replace the car with a new defect-free model and pay Rs.2,000 as costs. However, both Maruti and the dealer appealed to the State Commission but their appeals were dismissed and the State Commission upheld the District Forum's order. Maruti and the dealer had now preferred a revision petitions with the National Commission challenging the State Commission's order.

The NCDRC stated that the general accepted position in law was that onus to prove the manufacturing defect by way of inspection by an Expert would lie upon the Complainant’s side. But this could not be a water tight proposition in all cases since in the present case, the possession of the vehicle in question had been uninterruptedly with the Petitioner/Dealer for more 12 year since 5.4.2011. So it was for the said Petitioner/Opposite Party to get the same examined by an Expert or offered to have such examination conducted at its own premises, however, the same was not done.

The Tribunal stated that the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners/Opposite Parties imputing defects in the vehicle to the own acts of the Complainant were not convincing. It had been alleged that when the vehicle did not start, the Complainant with the help of some local/unauthorised Mechanic had tried to jump start the same which resulted in damage to the fuse of the car. It was, however, nowhere the case of the Complainant that he had in any manner ‘jump start; the vehicle by calling any local or unauthorised Mechanic for that purpose. Significantly, copy of the Affidavit in Evidence if any, filed on behalf of the Complainant in the Ld. District Forum had not been filed along with rest of the papers in the present Revision Petitions.