Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is directed against the order dated 03.02.2016 of the Ld. DCDRC Kolkata—I (North) passed in CC/217/2010 by the Appellant/OP.
The case of the Complainant in short is that Complainant for his personal use approached the O.P No. 3 at their show room at Southern Avenue, Kolkata-29 for purchasing one car for an amount of Rs. 4,05,829/- on 01.07.2008 which is valid upto 03.07.2012 and valid upto mileage of 80,000/- kms. During the first warranty period i.e. during 24 months of warranty the Maruti Swift car of Complainant started several problems and defects which has been complained before O.Ps during free services and also subsequently too. O.Ps attended all the complaints and tried to repair the defects by way of replacing several spare parts but all in vain and still all the defects are existing.
Finally Complainant lodged the case against the O.Ps. On hearing both sides, Ld. DCDRC allowed the Complaint Case.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, Appellant/OP filed the instant Appeal.
On hearing both sides over the matter, it appears to whether the vehicle in question suffers with any “manufacturing defect” or not?
In this aspect, the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble NCDRC is as follows:-
- Maruti Udyog Limited Vs Sushil Kumar Gabgotra
The replacement/refund of price of vehicle is neither justifiable nor warranted in the case of warranty with specific obligations.
- Maruti Udyog Limited Versus Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Others
III (2009) CPJ 229 (NC) has held that the Manufacturing defect is more than an ordinary defect, which may be result of an unintended aspect of finished product due to error or omission in assembly or manufacture of the vehicle at the factory during manufacture process. The allegation of manufacturing defect in goods can only be adjudicated on the basis of inspection report of appropriate laboratory.
(iii) 2015(2) CPR 637 (NC) Adequate evidence is required for treating as manufacturing defect.
Perused the inspection report of MVI (Tech) which speaks nothing specifically about ‘Manufacturing Defect’. The report is visual in nature not supported by any analysis/laboratory test as mentioned in 13(1)(c) of the Act.
Considering the entire panorama, the observation of Ld. DCDRC is not sustainable in law. In order to arrive at an appropriate conclusion some more evidence is required. Accordingly the matter is remanded back to Ld. DCDRC for fresh adjudication.
Thus the Appeal is allowed in part.
