Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and Another Vs. Rajender Singh - (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (22 Jul 2024)

Expert evidence is an essential requisite to prove inherent manufacturing defect

MANU/SL/0011/2024

Consumer

Complainant purchased Motorcycle (Splendor) from dealer on 17.03.2018. The motorcycle had issues from the very first day it was purchased. The complainant brought the motorcycle for minor repairs on 11.04.2018. After a while, the motorcycle went out of order again and was brought in for repairs. After several rounds of repairs, the dealer told the complainant that the Motorcycle has an inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant pleading deficiency of services and unfair trade practice on the part of the company and the dealer filed the complaint in District Consumer Commission-Bhiwani.

District Consumer Commission-Bhiwani preceded the matter ex parte. They ordered appellants to replace old motorcycle of complainant, with new one along with compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses. Aggrieved by this appellant presented this present appeal. The issue raised in the present case is can repeated repairs be considered evidence of a manufacturing defect?

It was observed that inherent manufacturing defects are something more than ordinary defects. To support the claim of inherent defect, the report of an expert is an essential requirement. To establish a claim for total replacement by a new vehicle; a complainant must prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of the experts like automobile/mechanical engineer that vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect.

Therefore, the Commission rejected the complainant's claim regarding replacement of a new motorcycle in place of an old motorcycle as it does not carry any credence. But the compensation of Rs. 5000/- awarded to complainant was “just, appropriate and reasonable compensation” as the complainant suffered harassment and agony by knocking the doors of the dealer time and again at regular intervals.

Tags : EXPERT REPORT   DEFECTS   COMPENSATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved