NCDRC: Onus of Proving Defect Not Absolute for Complainants

NCDRC: Onus of Proving Defect Not Absolute for Complainants

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), based in New Delhi, addressed a case concerning the sale of a defective Maruti Wagon R car to a customer.

The NCDRC upheld the State Commission's order but with a modification. Instead of replacing the car, the Commission ruled that both Maruti and the dealer were liable to refund the purchase amount of ₹3,97,887 to the customer, along with interest. Additionally, they were directed to pay enhanced litigation costs of ₹20,000 to the customer.

In this case, Ronald D'Silva, the respondent, bought the car from Maruti's dealer on March 24, 2011, for ₹3,97,887. However, shortly after the purchase, the car started experiencing problems. On April 4, 2011, the vehicle broke down after covering a mere three kilometres. Ronald promptly reached out to Aryan Motors, an authorised agent of Maruti, who then informed him that the car had multiple defects in its cooling system, rendering it unfit for use.

Following the car's breakdown and receiving an unfavourable response from Maruti and the dealer, the respondent, D'Silva, took the next legal step. He sent a legal notice requesting a replacement of the defective car with a new one. However, Maruti and the dealer rejected the request, asserting that there were no manufacturing defects in the car. Subsequently, D'Silva proceeded to file a complaint with the District Consumer Forum, seeking either a refund of the purchase amount or a replacement car.

Upon thorough examination of the case, the District Forum identified service deficiencies and manufacturing defects in the car. Consequently, it directed both Maruti and the dealer to replace the defective vehicle with a new model that was free from any defects. Additionally, they were ordered to pay ₹2,000 as costs.

Unsatisfied with the District Forum's decision, both Maruti and the dealer appealed to the State Commission. However, their appeal was dismissed, and the State Commission upheld the District Forum's order, affirming the need for a replacement and the cost award.

The NCDRC pointed out that the general accepted legal position was that the burden of proving a manufacturing defect, through expert inspection, typically rested on the complainant's side. However, they acknowledged that this principle might not be infallible in all cases.

In the present case, the possession of the vehicle had remained continuously with the Petitioner/Dealer for over 12 years since April 5, 2011. Given this extended period of possession, the responsibility to have the vehicle examined by an expert or offer to conduct such an examination at their own premises fell upon the said Petitioner/Opposite Party, which was not done.

The Tribunal dismissed the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners/Opposite Parties, as they attempted to attribute the defects in the vehicle to the complainant's own actions. The petitioners alleged that the complainant, when faced with the vehicle's starting issue, sought the help of a local or unauthorised mechanic to jump-start the car, resulting in damage to the car's fuse. However, the complainant had never claimed or asserted that he had engaged any local or unauthorised mechanic to perform a jump start on the vehicle.

Notably, the Tribunal observed that the petitioners failed to provide a copy of any Affidavit in Evidence filed by the complainant in the District Forum along with the other papers in the current Revision Petitions.