A.P. Sahi, President
The complainant has come up through its Director Sunny Garg alleging deficiency in service for the supply and sale of a luxury car "Range Rover", which is a four wheel drive vehicle manufactured by M/s. Jaguar Ltd., U.K. and imported to India and marketed through M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. The car was purchased after being booked on 21.11.2009. The vehicle order booking agreement for shipment from M/s. Jaguar / Land Rover has been filed on record giving a description of the vehicle of an Alaska white colour. The sales order has also been filed on record with the basic price of the vehicle being Rs. 99,95,451/-. The said sales order was given effect to and the vehicle was supplied through the invoice which describes the product as a Range Rover 3.6 ltr TDV8. The said invoice is also on record.
2. The vehicle was driven after the delivery was made on 08.01.2010 at Mumbai to the complainant and was driven by Mr. Sunny Garg to Chandigarh. On his way, after having driven the vehicle for about 750 kms, the trouble reported is that the car started wobbling when the brakes were applied and the DVD player was not functioning. According to the complainant, he had contacted one Ms. Vishakha at the Mumbai office of the OP, who was called upon to contact the Service Incharge. The complainant was advised to drive the vehicle under 100 kms per hour till some service representative called back to gauge the exact diagnosis, but according to the complainant he did not receive any call and as a result whereof he drove the car cautiously till New Delhi.
3. It is alleged that at New Delhi, he was informed that the workshop was closed during day time and ineffective replies were given by the dealers at Delhi and even at Ludhiana. According to the complainant, the problem grew and subsisted and consequently on 15.03.2010, a letter was dispatched to the OP entailing the complaints and narrating the manner of the defect in the vehicle.
4. Thus began the dispute between the parties regarding the defect in the vehicle which was reported and all complaints according to the OP were attended to and replacements were made to satisfy the customer.
5. Ultimately at one point of time, the Ops through their officials Sanjiv Tiwari sent a mail on 30.08.2010, offering a sale of a new Range Rover with improved features of 4.4 Diesel engine at a special price of Rs. 1,04,24,646/-as a replacement. It was understood that the price already paid for the vehicle purchased by the complainant would be adjusted against this price and that would hardly be a difference of a couple of lakhs. The complainant was also requested to sign a No Objection Certificate to that effect and the said document also accompanies the sale letter, but the complainant declined to pay the difference of the price of for the new vehicle which was stated to be Rs. 4,29,000/- and also demanded interest. This letter dated 07.09.2010 has also been brought on record along with the said letter of offer referred to above. It appears that the OPs instead requested the complainant to get his vehicle to be repaired from the concerned dealer as he had not accepted the replacement offer of a new specially priced vehicle.
6. In essence, it appears that since the complainant had not accepted the said offer of the exchange of a new vehicle on a special price, the matter did not proceed any further.
7. According to the OPs, brake pad issues were attended to and they were all replaced timely. Nonetheless, with no solution forthcoming as per the satisfaction of the complainant, a legal notice was served on 08.02.2011 by the complainant on the OPs. The OPs have taken a stand that the vehicle had not been driven appropriately and had been negotiating bad road conditions with heavy braking that resulted in the poor condition of the brake pads which were self-explanatory and had to be replaced thrice. The stand of the OPs is that the vehicle was driven contrary to the Owner's Manual cautions and precautions. The vehicle having been driven in a faulty manner, the complications had arisen, but there was no manufacturing defect of wobbling at all. In essence the defects were an outcome of defective and reckless driving.
8. The complaint was filed on 13.05.2011 and notices were issued. The matter remained pending and ultimately the complainant moved I.A. No. 11861 of 2018 praying for appointment of a Local Commissioner in order to inspect the vehicle. In essence, the application was for the appointment of an expert after almost 8 years of the delivery of the vehicle and after 7 years of the filing of the complaint. This application was to identify the allegation of the manufacturing defect. The Commission passed an order on 26.09.2018 granting time to the OPs to file a reply to the said application. On 23.08.2019, the following order was passed by this Commission:
This matter has been lingering on for consideration of I.A. No.11861 of 2018, an application filed on behalf of complainant seeking appointment of an expert to examine the vehicle under consideration and submit its report.
This complaint was filed in 2011. Many years have elapsed. Admittedly, the vehicle is lying with the complainant. Also, the OP submits that reply to the said IA has not been filed so far on behalf of the OP.
In view of above, I direct as follows:
(i) OP to file their affidavit evidence and reply to I.A. No.11861 of 2018 within six weeks, with copy to the complainant.
(ii) The matter be listed for final arguments on 31.8.2020.
(iii) All parties to submit their short synopsis of arguments no exceeding 4 to 4 pages with duly paginated and cross-referenced in respect to the court's file with copy to each other, at-least two weeks before the date fixed for arguments.
9. A perusal of the said order would also demonstrate that the vehicle was still in the possession of the complainant. The matter could not be heard thereafter nor any orders were passed on the said application. When the matter was taken up again on 07.11.2023, the following order was passed:
Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.
This is a dispute pertaining to an allegation of manufacturing defects in a Range Rover Car. Contentions have been raised urging that there were initial manufacturing defects which were pointed out when the car had been driven approximately about 750 Kms. It is urged that wobbling of the wheels on applying breaks was noticed. Whereafter a series of such complaints were made, which have been disclosed in the complaint, contending that these manufacturing defects were brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties time and again but ultimately of no avail and the manufacturing defects continued to persist, as a result whereof the present complaint was filed for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
The written version to the complaint has been brought on record denying the allegations and a rejoinder has also been filed. The Opposite Party has refuted all the contentions urging that any such defects which had been pointed out initially stood removed and as a matter of fact there was no technical defect on an assessment being made by the engineers of the Opposite Party. In such a situation the allegations made are without foundation.
In view of these contesting claims IA No. 11861 of 2018 was filed for appointment of an expert to examine and certify the said allegations of manufacturing defect in the car. The said application was entertained and the opposite party sought time to file a response to the same. Objections to the said application have been served on the other side by the learned counsel for the opposite party but the said reply has not been filed physically. It is stated at the bar that the said application was filed during the Covid times virtually through email on 12.04.2021. Learned Counsel submits that the physical copy is still available with him. Let the same be filed before the Registry and be placed on record.
The application has been moved almost after seven years of the filing of the complaint. The idea of obtaining an expert report with regard to the alleged defects, therefore at this stage is being doubted by the learned counsel for the opposite party and he submits that keeping in view the nature of the allegations made about manufacturing defects, the same has also to be viewed from the point of view of the warranty given for the vehicle when it was sold.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the opposite party may obtain documents pertaining to the coverage of warranty of the vehicle, which is evident from voucher of the spare parts that were replaced at the instance of the complainants. Nonetheless, the same would be needed for ultimate adjudication of the controversy. Consequently, let any such document if available be brought on record indicating as to the warranty clause pertaining to the vehicle. The same shall be filed within four weeks.
List on 12.02.2024.
10. Time was taken to file documents pertaining to the warranty of the vehicle by the complainant and in the meantime, I.A. No. 6117 of 2024 was filed seeking to grant permission to allow the transfer of the registration number of the vehicle to another vehicle. This application was found to be beyond the purview of this complaint and was accordingly rejected on 24.06.2024. The case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel on a couple of more occasions and then the matter was heard on 10.07.2025 when Mr. Bhalla, learned counsel for the complainant concluded his arguments and the following order was passed:
Vakalatnama of Advocates has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties who are assisting Mr. Aditya Narain, learned Senior Counsel.
Mr. Bhalla, learned counsel for the complainant, has concluded his arguments today and in support of his submissions has pointed out various mails starting from 15th March, 2010 till October, 2010 to demonstrate the communications that were exchanged between the complainant and the opposite parties regarding the nature of deficiencies as alleged and also the response of the opposite parties. The contention is that the vehicle, apart from other minor defects, had the major manufacturing defect of the wobbling of the wheels which could not be rectified in spite of the fact that the engineers from the opposite parties, including an engineer from the United Kingdom, arrived to rectify the same and also replaced spare parts, still the vehicle could not prove its worth. Learned counsel submits that the vehicle has run less than 20,000 Kms. and yet for the past 15 years the same has been in total disuse because of the defects, including the minor defects that have been pointed out by him. He therefore submits that a high-end vehicle purchased by the complainant having failed to deliver its worth deserves to be compensated as against any such offer which was made by the opposite parties during the pendency of the communications between them.
Concluding his submissions, he has cited the following judgments in support of his submissions:
(i) M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2007 SCC OnLine NCDRC 72);
(ii) M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. M/s Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. & Anr. (2007 SCC OnLine NCDRC 87); and
(iii) Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Controls & Switchgear Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2025) 1 SCC 534.
Since no further time is left today, the matter stands adjourned to enable Mr. Narain, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties, to advance his submissions.
List on 15.10.2025 at 2.00 p.m.
11. Mr. Aditya Narain, then proceeded to advance his submissions on 15.10.2025 when the hearing concluded and the orders were reserved.
12. Mr. Aditya Narain also parted with an interesting information that even though the vehicle was delivered in 2010 with a temporary registration, the complainant did not get the vehicle registered with any permanent registration number and in fact kept the vehicle in the same status virtually without a registration certificate for several months together. The vehicle was issued a registration certificate only on 06.01.2011 which is evident from the certificate of registration issued by the licencing authority, Chandigarh and has been filed as Ex.C-56 by the complainant himself. He therefore submits that all the complaints which were made in between in the year 2010 were of the period when the vehicle was not registered and was running on road with mileages covered in default of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder.
13. The written version and the evidence by the parties has been filed and an allegation of bias and prejudice has also been advanced by Mr. Aditya Narain, learned senior counsel for the OPs urging that the complainant in effect had desired for award of a dealership of this brand of vehicle from M/s. Tata Motors for which an application was moved on 19.07.2009. The said application had been moved along with another associate Mr. Jashanjit Singh Bedi, but that application did not find favour with M/s. Tata Motors and instead the dealership was given to M/s. Dada Motors. Mr. Aditya Narain submits that it was this prejudice also which led to the complainant's attitude in making a complaint about the vehicle, the defects whereof relating to the brakes was only due to reckless driving and nothing else. Mr. Aditya Narain has urged that this prejudice has led to the filing of the complaint and therefore the complaint was neither bonafide nor genuine.
14. Mr. Aditya Narain has also alleged that the complainant has deliberately suppressed material facts that also disentitles the complainant to maintain the complaint. He has cited the decision in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 to support his contentions.
15. The reply filed by the OP also taken a stand that the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant company has purchased the vehicle after taking a loan from the HDFC Bank which is for a commercial purpose, and hence is not a consumer.
16. Before dealing with the main case relating to the complaint of a manufacturing defect or a defect as against the defence of the OPs that the defects were due to reckless driving by the complainant, it would be apt to deal with the preliminary submission of Mr. Aditya Narain, learned senior counsel of the OPs as noted above.
17. The first submission regarding the litigation not being bonafide, and is an outcome of some prejudice as the dealership request of the complainant had been rejected, in our opinion, seems to be a farfetched argument. The dealership form was filled up on 19.07.2009. It is not understandable as to why would the complainant purchase a Land Rover vehicle worth Rs. 1 Crore to teach the OPs some lesson in future through litigation and embarrass them. It might be that after the vehicle gave trouble, some prejudice might have generated thereafter, but that has no connect with the rejection of the dealership nor is there any evidence to that effect. This argument therefore does not hold water and we accordingly reject the same.
18. Coming to the second issue as to whether the complainant company is a consumer or not, this question need not detain us any further as the vehicle was purchased by the Director of the company and such issues have already been dealt with and answered in a large number of decisions including the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. & Anr. (2025) 1 SCC 534. The complaint is therefore very much maintainable and cannot be non-suited on that ground.
19. The third allegation is about suppression of some material fact. We do not find this to be a plausible ground either to dismiss the complaint, in as much as, all facts relating to the allegations have been catalogued to which a response has been given by the OPs and has been considered by us. We do not find any suppression of material facts as alleged so as to draw any adverse inference against the complainant.
20. We may now also record that the vehicle was manufactured in December, 2009 and was delivered to the complainant in January, 2010. 15 years have passed by and it was only after 7 years of the filing of the complaint that an application I.A. No. 11861 of 2018 was moved for obtaining an expert opinion regarding the allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in respect of the wobbling, vibration and juddering of the vehicle on the application of brakes. The said application was moved in 2018 that was taken up on 23.08.2019 when it was observed that the vehicle has been in the possession of the complainant for many years. Unfortunately, the application was not disposed of nor seems to have been seriously pressed thereafter which fact was noticed when the matter was taken up next on 07.11.2023. We may point out that one of the main grounds taken in opposition to this complaint by the OPs is that the complainant has failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The objections to the same have been filed and the complainant has now brought forward the documents through D. No. 14804 dated 16.04.2024 that were desired under the orders of this Commission regarding warranty conditions alongwith the Owners Manual and the other documents that are on record and we have perused the same. At this stage after 15 years of the manufacturing of the vehicle, which may now not be even road worthy keeping in view the age of the vehicle, we find it impractical and unpragmatic to entertain the said application, which is accordingly consigned. The job card and the invoices are available on record and the Owners Manual has been filed by the OPs that can be taken into account for guidance in order to arrive at any conclusion with regard to the allegations of defects.
21. I.A. No. 11861 of 2018 is therefore accordingly consigned.
22. Learned counsel for the complainant has advanced his submissions that have been noted in the order dated 10.07.2025 and there is also a written argument on record filed on behalf of the complainant filed vide a Diary No. 28658 dated 25.08.2023. The same is extracted hereinunder:
23. A perusal of the contentions indicates that the repetitive defects regarding the brake pads are clearly evident from the job cards and the repairs carried out and in spite of that the said complaint persisted. The malfunctioning of one of the most important component of the vehicle, namely the braking system, is somewhat that endangers the life of the driver and the passenger on the vehicle. The request for rectification of the said defect remained unattended and unrectified. The defect was never removed and therefore the learned counsel has also urged that the principles of res ipsa loquitur are clearly attracted. It has also been submitted that the very act of the OPs in offering to replace the vehicle with a specially priced vehicle of a new vehicle on payment of the difference of the amount itself is indicative of the fact that the vehicle was defective and it is for this reason that the OPs made this offer.
24. The contention is that having failed to rectify the defect, the same was a gross deficiency and an unfair trade practice and on account of multiple visits to the garage within a very short span of time in close proximity of the purchase of the vehicle establishes that the complainant was handed over a vehicle which was defective and the services were totally unprofessional.
25. It has also been urged that the Range Rover was a car with so many defects that it was recalled on several occasions in the past and was not a successful vehicle at all.
26. It has therefore been urged that the complaint be allowed and the reliefs prayed for be granted. Mr. Bhalla has pointed out to I.A. No. 6116 of 2024 that was filed on 16.04.2024 bringing on record the warranty card mentioning the warranty conditions which is for three years or upto 1 lakh kms. It is therefore contended that the vehicle was well under the warranty period covering the vehicle and the accessories and therefore the other minor defects were also liable to be rectified.
27. Mr. Aditya Narain refuting the submissions has invited the attention of the Bench to the various mail communications on record and their contents to point out that the frequent defects in the brake pads were on account of reckless driving and heavy braking on poor road conditions and therefore the replacements had to be made on account of a driving defect and not on account of any manufacturing defect. He has invited the attention of the Bench to the vehicle history job card as well as the Owners Manual on record to urge that vehicle owners had been cautioned to drive carefully but it appears that the complainant at the outset drove the vehicle from Mumbai to Delhi and then to Chandigarh in a most reckless manner and even thereafter the vehicle does not seem to be driven with care as per the instructions given in the Owners Manual which resulted in the frequent replacement of the brake pads that was done promptly and all repairs which were within the warranty period were done without charges.
28. Mr. Narain submits that it is on 15.03.2010 that this complaint of wobbling was allegedly made and from the job card history of the vehicle, it is apparent that the braking pads got worn out on intervals of either 5000 or 3000 kms or even thereafter which is evident from the mileage recorded in the job card. This was not due to any manufacturing defect, which has not been established, and the application which was moved before this Commission in 2018 for an expert opinion, was an afterthought, having realised that the complainant had not been able to establish through any appropriate evidence and allegation any manufacturing defect. Mr. Aditya Narain submits that the defect of wobbling can also arise out of improper handling of the vehicle and an allegation of manufacturing defect cannot be imputed without there being any expert evidence. For this reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on an order passed by this Commission in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. Bahadur Singh & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1241 paragraph 32 to substantiate the said submission.
29. He then cited the decision in the case of M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. vs. Baby Benjamin Thushara, DRJ 1992 (23), decided on 23.03.1992 to urge that an expert evidence would be necessary for establishing any manufacturing defect and he therefore submits that in the absence of any evidence of a manufacturing defect and is a clear indication of a reckless driving contrary to the instructions of the Owners Manual. The complainant has failed to make out any case for grant of any relief on the ground of any deficiency or unfair trade practice.
30. It is then submitted that the offer made by the OPs for the replacement of the vehicle as communicated through the mails dated 05.08.2010 and 30.08.2010 were a bonafide attempt to satisfy the customer and to maintain the goodwill and reputation of the firm. The same in no way can be construed as any weakness of any defence or any admission of an alleged, unproved manufacturing defect. To the contrary, it was a pure customer service that was genuinely and bonafidely made in order to comfort the complainant who refuted this offer for no valid reason and the dispute could have been resolved long before. This was a clear act of fairness in trade and therefore the allegation of an unfair trade practice is absolutely unfounded. Mr. Narain submits that there was neither any deficiency in service nor was there any manufacturing defect and to the contrary the OPs had made a very fair offer which the complainants voluntarily and on their own declined to avail of. Thus, the complaint is being pursued on unfounded allegations without any material to substantiate the same and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
31. We may at the outset point out the law enunciated as to what is a manufacturing defect has been dealt with in several cases by the Apex Court as well as by this Commission and have been reproduced and reiterated very lately in a decision of this Commission in the case of H.G. Jain vs. Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CC No. 284 of 2015, decided on 14.07.2025.
32. A perusal of the orders passed by this Commission in the case of Anand Kumar Bansal vs. M/s. Premiere Ltd. & Anr., R.P. No. 2815 of 2015, decided on 31.07.2019 would indicate the distinction between a defect and a manufacturing defect.
33. In the decision of this Commission in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (supra) that has been relied on by the learned counsel for the OPs, it would be seen that in that case there was some sort of expert evidence, but while dealing with the case, section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, defining a defect read with the word "deficiency" defined under section 2(1)(g) and the warranty conditions involved therein were considered and the Revision Petition was partly allowed keeping in view the fact that the vehicle had repeatedly reported defects during the warranty period, and therefore compensation was awarded for the same. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the defects regarding juddering and vibration on the application of brakes were reported and was attended to. For this, it would be apt to reproduce the vehicle history job card which is extracted hereinunder:
34. No doubt the replacement of the braking pads has been done frequently after the vehicle for the first time was sent for replacement and was taken for service. The same was replaced and the defect attended to on 20.04.2010 when the vehicle had run 7949 kms. The job card also indicates some coolant loss and other minor defects.
35. It may be pointed out that prior to this after the report of wobbling had been made on 15.03.2010, the complainant also insisted that the Engineers should not be sent from Ludhiana Dealership of M/s. Dada Motors but should be sent from Mumbai directly. This is evident from the mail dated 17.03.2010. After some wait, and exchange of communications, the Engineers from Mumbai reached and replaced the brake pads as well as the router which stands acknowledged in the mail dated 31.03.2010, extracted hereinunder:
36. A perusal of the said mail demonstrates about the complaint having occurred within 1000 kms of the running of the vehicle that had approximately done 6000 kms when the brake pads were replaced.
37. Thereafter the OPs intimated that on inspection their Engineer had indicated that the vehicle can be used in a normal manner as there is no brake issue now. The DVD issue was also dealt with in the mail dated 05.04.2010, which is extracted hereinunder:
38. The complainants indicated some jitters in the brake and it appears that with the speeding up of the vehicle, the problems were indicated and the complaints were again sent. The OPs intimated that they had been advised by the Company at United Kingdom to replace one of the parts which was in transit and the same was replaced. This directive in the mail dated 20.05.2010 seems to have been executed as per the job card dated 09.06.2010 when the vehicle had done 12173 kms. Thus the brake pad issues were dealt with thrice, once as acknowledged on 31.03.2010, the second on 20.04.2010 and the third on 09.06.2010. The complainant had also raised issues through his mail dated 05.07.2010 about the horn of the vehicle, the wipers and some rattling noise in the dashboard. The same also seems to have been rectified which is evident from the job card dated 19.07.2010 when the vehicle had reportedly done 15688 kms. The job cards in support thereof have been filed on record. The complainants relied on the communications that went on between 08.07.2010 and 28.07.2010 to allege that the vehicle had been diagnosed and it was confirmed that the problem of the brake was persisting which according to the complainant was after a great deal of discussion with the UK Engineers as well.
39. The dispute then takes a U-turn when on 05.08.2010, the complainant wrote back to the OPs on their willingness to replace the vehicle with their existing vehicle. The said mail dated 05.08.2010 is reproduced hereinunder:
40. Accordingly, the OPs made their offer with the quotation of the special price and for adjustment of the price already paid for the vehicle purchased by the complainant. The said offer dated 30.08.2010 made by the OPs is extracted hereinunder:
41. The same was accompanied by a No Objection Certificate and also a recital that this will be a full and final settlement of all claims against the Tata Motors. The said draft of the declaration is extracted hereinunder:
42. It was also accompanied by a sales order that has also been brought on record.
43. As already narrated in the opening paragraphs, the complainant refused to make the payment of the difference of the amount that was neither too significant nor heavy given the nature of the offer made given the higher version of vehicle offered. The terms and conditions that were virtually demanded by the complainant while not accepting the said offer are evident from their mail dated 07.09.2010, which is extracted hereinunder:
44. In this background the complaint was preceeded by a legal notice and has been responded to by the OPs. A reply and an evidence affidavit has been filed in response to this complaint to urge that there is no evidence of any manufacturing defect and even otherwise the complainant has failed to accept the fair offer of replacement by the OPs and hence, there is neither any deficiency in service nor is there any unfair trade practice.
45. We have therefore now to assess the allegations and counter allegations in the background of the said submissions and the facts on record. It is now almost more than certain that the vehicle has lost all its utility purpose after a span of 15 years of its manufacture and the pendency of this dispute. The fact of the matter is that the vehicle remained with the complainant throughout which fact is undisputed. It is also undisputed that the vehicle ran uptill January, 2011 without a registration and during this period the vehicle seems to have covered a fairly good mileage, in as much as, when the vehicle had went for repairs in July, 2010, it had already done well over 15,688 kms. It is probable that the vehicle must have run more than that before the complaint was actually filed. This fact confirms that the vehicle had been utilised by the complainant for a good amount of mileage upto the time when the complaint was filed, but in spite of this, the OPs had made an offer for replacement of the vehicle which was refused by the complainant as indicated above. In such circumstances, the complainant cannot complain of unfair services or an unfair dealing.
46. The vehicle had been repaired each time it went to the garage with full warranty replacement of parts, whether it was the brake pads or the wiper blades or the horn equipment which is evident from the job card. There was therefore no deficiency in the services rendered whenever the complaint was made under the warranty coverage.
47. The question now is as to whether the said complaint which is alleged to be persistent and consistent regarding the braking system of the vehicle and the resultant wobbling sound is on account of any manufacturing defect or not. As noted above, the complainant has been unable to produce any evidence regarding any reported manufacturing defect of Range Rover vehicle of 2009 modal that was purchased by the complainant. The expert evidence which was attempted to be requested for after 8 years through an application, was an attempt after 8 years of the vehicle being in the custody of the complainant and in his possession and having been used. In the given circumstances and the probabilities, from the evidence on record, it is true that the braking pads were replaced frequently, but there is a possibility of the vehicle being driven not in accordance with the Owner's Manual and the wearing out of the brake pads frequently, from the model of the vehicle which is a 3.6 ltrs and a V8 engine, it is probable that with such a powerful engine, the person driving the vehicle in order to control it on Indian road conditions may be possibly applying brakes frequently or else the brake pads would not ordinarily and normally be worn out. Not only this, the vehicle history job card dated 19.07.2010 indicates that the disc was "badly burnt out". This also demonstrates the utilisation of the brakes frequently and quite possibly a drive with heavy braking. The complainants have not been able to explain as to why and how did this happen and having not been able to lead any evidence about any manufacturing defect as such, we cannot assume the existence of either a manufacturing or any other inherent defect. We have already indicated above the description of manufacturing defects to be a defect that might have occurred during the manufacturing process. This sort of manufacturing defect in the present case is wanting for lack of evidence even though the defects which were pointed out by the complainant were promptly retrieved under warranty conditions free of charge. This promptness of service cannot be ignored and over and above that the offer made by the OPs with a replacement of a new vehicle on a special price with only a small difference seems to have been a genuine and bonafide gesture on the part of the OPs which cannot be construed to be an admission of a manufacturing defect.
48. This Bench had the occasion to deal with a somewhat similar matter regarding a complaint filed by the purchaser of another high end vehicle manufactured by M/s. Volkswagen which was a luxury car of make "Phaeton". The said vehicle had been purchased in 2011 for a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs and odd and was claimed to be of a level of Bentley car of England. However, the offer was accompanied by an additional attraction of a complementary Volkswagen Beetle on the purchase of a Phaeton, but the complainant not being interested in the second car, he was offered a credit note of Rs. 31 lakhs and odd. In that case, unfortunately by the time the vehicle had covered about a little more than 17000 kms, trouble emanated with loud noises and leaking roofs as well as other electronic related problems. The vehicle had to be towed and sent to the dealer for repairs, but in spite of the attempted repairs, the vehicle had to repeatedly go to the garage without a successful diagnosis of the water leakage problem therein. Faced with this, the company had offered a 65% discount on the parts that were to be replaced and the labour charge if the complainant agreed to opt for carrying out the job on a paid basis. The complainant however refused to avail of the same and in those circumstances, the complainant had insisted for a replacement regarding which the manufacturer made an offer of the model Jetta, manufactured by it which was a three segment lower vehicle. The said offer was obviously declined by the complainant and then the legal notice followed, whereafter the complaint was filed.
49. In the said case, allegations had also been made with regard to the recall of vehicle manufactured by Volkswagen and some other issues were also raised, but after having assessed the pleadings, the Commission, noticing the warranty condition that was for two years or 1 lakh kms, came to the conclusion that there was lack of evidence of manufacturing defect. However, the Commission came to the conclusion that there were other defects which remained unrectified. It was also held that if there is a defect within the warranty period, then a liability can arise and for that reliance was placed on another judgment of this Commission in the case of Kishor N. Shah vs. M/s. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CC No. 301 of 2012, decided on 16.05.2025.
50. The Commission also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 574 of 2021, decided on 18.02.2021 that held that in view of the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer was that of principle to principle and not that of principle to agent. Consequently, it was held that the warranties offered to the customer during the warranty period covered the manufacturer and the dealer who would be liable for any repairs, replacement of any parts or replacement of the car itself, which is however subject to the terms of the warranty and the dealer alone cannot be made solely liable for the same.
51. On the issue of an expert opinion, it was observed in the case of Kishor N. Shah (supra) as follows:
"12.10. As regards requirement or need for a laboratory test/expert opinion to determine whether the good/car suffers from any 'defect', in particular a manufacturing defect', a bare perusal of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) reproduced above shows that such a laboratory test and/or expert opinion is required only when 'where the defect in the goods cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of goods', it is not mandatory in all cases where the complainant alleges a defect in the goods. This Commission has taken such a view in many cases. In M/s. Kataria Automobiles versus Prabodhkant Damodaras Pandya, RP No. 3916 of 2008, decided on 21.09.2021, this Commission observed:
"8. In the light of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that determining 'defect' in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 13(1)(c) to (g) was not required in this case, and, as such, this "omission", as argued by the learned counsel for the Dealer, is not fatal to the case of the Complainant..........." The Dealer received the sale price. It was responsible for satisfactorily repairing the vehicle. Determining 'defect' in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act 1986 was not required in this case. As such there was no need to implead the Manufacturer as a necessary party before the District Commission. In any case......."
In Hind Motor (I) Ltd. Vs. Lakhbir Singh, RP No. 2790 of 2008 along with RP 4345 of 2008, decided on 02.12.2013 (2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1033), this Commission observed:
"19. Furthermore, within eight months of selling of the vehicle, as per petitioners' own case, it required substantial repairs worth Rs.2.25 lakh. This itself goes on to show that there were inherent defects in the vehicle, that is, why it required substantial repairs. Under such circumstances, no expert opinion is required as the facts of the case itself speaks that major repairs were required just after short span of eight months from the date of the sale of the vehicle."
In Tata Motors Vs. Navin Nishchal & Anr., RP No. 2207 of 2007, decided on 07.08.2012, this Commission observed:
10. From this, it is clear that reference to an appropriate laboratory (or, expert) for determination of defects in goods is not entirely mandatory. In this case, based on the admitted evidence that the complainant was required to take his newly purchased car to the workshops of the opposite parties repeatedly practically every month the District Forum specifically observed-Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that there is no expert opinion that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In our view no expert opinion is required in the circumstances of the case as noted above. The vehicle did not run smoothly even for a month and within two months of the purchase it was taken to the workshop of the OPs with complaints of high consumption oil and in less than four months started emitting excessive smoke. The car had to be taken to the workshop of the OPs almost every month with one problem or the other and one problem, which continued persisting is high consumption of engine oil and emission of smoke impels us to the inference that there is some manufacturing defect which is beyond rectification.
In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India (P) Ltd. Vs. Meghna Corporate Ltd., RP No. 589 of 2020 decided on 24.06.2020 (2020) SCC OnLine NCDRC 910), this Commission observed:
"10. It is argued that there is no compliance by the District Forum of Section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 13(1)(c) is reproduced as under:
13. Procedure on admission of complaint. - (1) The District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,-
(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(c) where the complaint alleges a detect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it m the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.
11. From the bare reading of this provision, it is apparent that the District Forum is required to obtain the expert opinion only when it is of the opinion that the defects as mentioned in the Complaint could not be ascertained without proper analysis or test of the goods. In the present case, there were 25 job cards showing the repair and replacement of various parts of the car, which were based on evidences on record filed by the Complainant along with its Complaint and were sufficient for the District Forum to determine the nature of the defects in the vehicle. The Petitioner after receiving the notice of the Complaint wherein the Complainant had alleged that there were defects in the car, had the opportunity to move an appropriate application for obtaining the expert opinion to contradict the allegations of the Complainant. That opportunity was not seized by the Petitioner. In fact, not even a single piece of evidence has been produced by the Petitioner to contradict the contentions of the Complainant/Respondent no.1. Non-compliance of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act therefore it not fatal to this case. The findings on which the Petitioner has relied upon were given on the facts and circumstances of those cases and the facts and circumstances of this case are entirely different. It is apparent that within a span of 3% years till the filing of the Complaint, the vehicle which was new had to be taken for repairs to the repairing centre of Respondent no.2 for 25 times. This itself shows that the goods supplied were defective."
In view of the foregoing, we hold that laboratory test and/or expert opinion to determine/establish a defect and/or manufacturing defect in a good/car, as prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) is not mandatory in each and every case, its requirement is case/fact specific. If there is other reliable, cogent and sufficient evidence on record, it is not necessary to have a laboratory test report and/or an expert opinion. Hence, in the present case, objection of the OPs that no expert opinion has been produced by the Complainant, is not valid."
52. The Commission then held that the defect of leakage from the sunroof of the Volkswagen Phaeton vehicle had not been finally cured and the vehicle experienced the same condition of imperfection, even though the vehicle had been sent to the garage on several occasions. The Commission therefore finally in paragraphs 54 and 55 after making observations awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for the harassment suffered by the complainant in the following terms:
54. The Complainant had purchased a brand new vehicle, even though on certain incentives but given the standard of the luxury car that was purchased by the Complainant, it was expected that the vehicle will perform well. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that the vehicle had been driven roughly or handled by untrained hands. The vehicle had been put to good use and had covered a very meager mileage but at the same time it continued to suffer defects. A customer having purchased a high-end vehicle does expect reasonably good performance and not to visit the garage with the vehicle time and again. It is for this reason that the Opposite Parties immediately offered a 65% discount on the repair and labour costs. To maintain their own reputation, the Opposite Parties therefore having come across the defects did attempt to rectify the errors but could not successfully do so.
55. We therefore find that the defects continued as narrated and this deficiency to that extent deserves to be compensated. The dealer had also not been able to cure the defects effectively given the period of warranty as well as extended warranty. The vehicle is no longer being manufactured and therefore there is no question of replacement of the vehicle even if the Complainant was entitled to it. Apart from this, the vehicle has been used by the Complainant since 2011 being in his possession and its registration is about to terminate in the year 2026. Thus keeping in view the two years of the life of the vehicle as now left and keeping in view the fact that there is no option of replacement of the parts or the same model of the vehicle and the costs suffered for repairs, we allow the complaint awarding a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as a lump sum amount to the Complainant for the harassment suffered on account of the continued and persistent defects that could not be removed resulting in the imperfect functioning of the vehicle. The liability of all the OP's is joint and several. With the aforesaid directions, the complaint stands disposed of.
53. Coming to the facts of the present case that the vehicle had to visit the garage at least four times within six months of its purchase, the defects seem to have occurred that were rectified. The defects of jittering and juddering on application of brakes did occur and was complained of, but it cannot be co-related to a manufacturing defect. It is alleged that the vehicle went off-road after July 2010 but no material regarding the current mileage of the vehicle has been brought on record to construe that the vehicle has not been used. Thus, on the principles of res ipsa loquitur the defects might have been persisting, but in the absence of any further evidence and the vehicle having been in the possession of the complainant that had run for about 16000 kms at the time of filing of the complaint, we find that the complainant had to face harassment time and again and the vehicle had to frequently visit the OPs dealers for repairs of the same problem in the braking system of the vehicle. It is quite possible that there might have been some shortcomings while driving the vehicle so as to question the driving skills, but no such convincing proof is available on record. The cause therefore relating to the defect of the braking problem did persist and on the principles of res ipsa loquitur, it would be safe to presume that the defects had not been finally cured. Accordingly, on the same lines as in the case of H.G. Jain vs. Volkswagen (supra), we find it expedient to award a lumpsum award of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of being compelled to visit the dealership for repairs, which according to the complainant continued, even after the repairs were carried out. Since, in the present case the vehicle was imported from the United Kingdom and marketed through the OP-1 firm, the liability to make the payments will be of the OPs. The payment of Rs. 10 lakhs shall be made by the OPs within one month from today.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |