This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Capt. S.C.Girotra against the order dated 14.12.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.863 of 2014.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased new Hyundai Accent car on 22.04.2009.  The following defects have been alleged in the car as per the complaint:-

“i.      AC of the vehicle was not effective and started giving problems.

ii.     Rattling of doors started at very early stage.

iii.    Vehicle use to stop on road no of times and help used to be taken from HYUNDAI helpline.

iv     The brakes were not effective which could endanger travelling.

v.    Most important, the vehicle used to lose pick up at slight gradient in Delhi roads in normal course and it would also loose pick up particularly at slow running and even stop in the middle of road. 

vi.    Last but not the least there was abnormal noise while running the vehicle, particularly when speed would increase more than 40 Km/hrs.”

3.      These problems/defects were brought to the notice of the opposite party and the vehicle was sent to the workshop of the opposite party on 16 occasions starting from 25.03.2010 till May, 2011. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service of the opposite party, the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.474 of 2012 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, (in short ‘the District Forum’).  The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement and it was asserted that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and whenever the car was brought to the workshop for any defect or any problem, the same was repaired/rectified.  However, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite party to replace the engine of the car with a new engine.

4.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred appeal bearing no.863 of 2014 before the State Commission.  The State Commission allowed the appeal vide its order dated 14.12.2015 and set aside the order of the District Forum.  Hence, the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the CNG Kit was fitted by the opposite party and the complainant had paid the amount for CNG Kit to the opposite party.  Obviously, CNG Kit is not given with the Hyundai Accent car, however, the opposite party had contracted with some company which fitted the CNG Kit. Neither the complainant has paid to that company nor taken possession of the car from that Company after fixation of the CNG Kit.  The opposite party has claimed that the defect of not picking up at slight gradient is due to CNG Kit and therefore, as the CNG Kit is also got fitted by the opposite party, the opposite party is responsible for the same. The car was purchased on 5.5.2009 and due to these defects the engine was overhauled in the year 2011 just after warranty expired after covering 57500km. whereas it was promised that the engine will not give any trouble upto 2,00,000 kms. The State Commission has allowed the appeal of the opposite party on the ground that there was no expert report.  When there was direct proof and when the engine was overhauled only after 57500 km., there was no need for expert report.  The District Forum had given a clear finding that the engine was defective and therefore, the District Forum ordered for replacement of the engine.  The finding of the District Forum was true as ultimately the engine was overhauled only when the car had run 57500 km.  As 10 years have passed after the purchase of the car and even if the State Commission order is set aside and the order of the District Forum is upheld, there will be no point in changing the engine by the opposite party because the engine has already been overhauled.  Therefore, the complainant now only wants compensation for the manufacturing defects in the car and the mental agony suffered. 

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Commission below erred in appreciating the provisions of law and got swayed away with the wordings of Section 13(1)(c) completely ignoring the fact that the opinion of the expert is not mandatory but supplemental in nature, that too in cases where it is found that if it is so required to get the expert opinion, Section 13(1)(3) itself provides for the same as under:-

 “where the complaint alleges a defect 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 in 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.”

8.      It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the expert opinion was necessary the District Forum or the State Commission should have ordered for the same under the above section as it was their bounden duty to have got the expert report, if they were not able to take any view on the defects.  The complaint cannot be dismissed because the complainant did not obtain any expert opinion.  Had the expert opinion been obtained by the complainant from any source, the opposite party would have alleged that the expert opinion was not an independent opinion.  Learned counsel for the complainant further stated that all the job cards clearly show that there were manufacturing defects.  The complainant is now unable to use the car as it is not usable but has sold it as the current proceedings are pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant requested that appropriate compensation may be awarded to the complainant.

9.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party stated that mere less mileage of a motor car does not necessarily indicate defects in the motor car, but it depends on the driving skill of the driver.  Learned counsel stated that the vehicle had run 9373 km. by 2009 and it had met with accidents at six occasions.  This clearly proves that the car was generally being driven rashly. It was a petrol car, however, on the request of the petitioner CNG Kit was fitted by a third party.  There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party.  Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Skoda Auto India P.Ltd. and Ors. Vs. M.Surendran, RP 4744 of 2013, decided on 13.03.2018 (NC), wherein this Commission has held that as the car had run about 1,38,435 kms. there cannot be any manufacturing defect in the car. 

10.    It was argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the onus to prove manufacturing defect rests on the complainant.  However, in the present case, the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect.  It was further stated by the learned counsel that the car was purchased on 22.4.2009 and it has been alleged that the car was sent 16 times to the workshop starting from 25.3.2010 till May, 2011.  This fact itself speaks that the car had run smoothly for about one year initially.  Thus, there can be no manufacturing defect in the car.

11.    I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.  First of all most of the defects mentioned in the complaint are those which can be rectified by the mechanics of the opposite party.  It has been alleged that the car was sent 16 times to the workshop from 25.3.2010 till May, 2011.  The car was purchased on 22.04.2009.  This means that the car has run smoothly for about one year.  Had there been any prominent manufacturing defect, the car would have been introuble even in the initial months of its driving.

12.    I find that it is also true that the engine of the car had run smoothly till the year 2011when it was overhauled after running 57500 km. only.  Though the opposite party has claimed that no such assurance was given to the complainant that the engine will not develop any defect before 2,00,000 kms, however, it is not normal that engine of a car is overhauled within a period when the car had run only 57500 kms.  That is why the District Forum had ordered the replacement of the engine. The State Commission has taken a view that there was no expert report, therefore, the complainant has not been able to prove any manufacturing defect in the car.  This view can be sustained keeping in view the fact that for about initial 11 months no manufacturing defects were witnessed and the car was running smoothly.  On the other hand, it is also true that even if there was no manufacturing defect, the overhauling of engine just after 57500 km. clearly shows that something was wrong in the engine and that was why it needed overhauling at such an earlier stage.  Without going into the question whether there was any manufacturing defect or not, one can very easily realise that there were certain defects which should not have been there in the newly purchased car.  When a person buys a new car, he expects that car should run without any trouble for at least a reasonable period of time.  Obviously, the complainant has suffered due to these defects and the car had to be sent again and again for repairs. This cannot be attributed to the rash driving by the complainant.  If there was any deficiency or defect developed in the car due to fitting of CNG Kit in the car, then also the opposite party is responsible because the complainant took the delivery of the car after the kit was fitted and the payment was also made to the opposite party.  Keeping all these aspects in view, in my opinion, the petitioner/complainant is entitled to some compensation from the opposite party.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- would be reasonable and sufficient in the present case.

13.    Based on the above discussion, the revision petition no.367 of 2016 is partly allowed and the respondent/opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- (rupees one lakhs twenty thousand only) to the petitioner/complainant.  This order be complied within a period of 45 days by the opposite party, failing which, this amount shall attract an interest of 8% p.a. from the date of this order.  No order as to cost for this revision petition.