NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved