Expert Opinion Mandatory to Prove Car Defect: Delhi Consumer Commission Rejects Complaint Against Volvo
Pranav B Prem
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a decision delivered by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Member (Judicial) Pinki, dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and its dealer Scandia Motorcars Pvt. Ltd., citing the absence of an expert report to substantiate the alleged manufacturing defect in the car. The Commission reiterated that the number of times a vehicle is taken to a service centre does not automatically indicate a manufacturing defect.
Background
The complainant, Mrs. Veena Devi (through her power of attorney holder), had purchased a Volvo CX60 D5 model car from Scandia Motorcars Pvt. Ltd. on 23.11.2020 for a consideration of ₹59,90,000, along with an additional ₹89,000 paid towards logistics. On 15.09.2021, the vehicle reportedly broke down, and it was diagnosed that the engine was not cranking due to fuel adulteration. As a result, the dealer replaced the fuel rail and one injector, and returned the vehicle to the complainant on 22.10.2021, providing a 50% waiver on the repair cost.
However, on 10.12.2021, the car broke down again, and a second diagnosis revealed faulty injectors. The dealer once again offered a 50% waiver on the repair expenses. Dissatisfied, the complainant claimed that the same issue occurring within two months indicated a manufacturing defect. The complainant alleged that the dealer refused to provide the certified lab report regarding fuel contamination and hence filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service, seeking a refund of ₹61,25,379, ₹10 lakh for negligence and unfair trade practice, ₹5 lakh for mental agony, and litigation costs.
Defense by the Dealer and Manufacturer
The dealer submitted that the car had previously been in an accident on 29.01.2021 and had been sent for repairs. It was further stated that the fuel sample collected on 16.09.2021 was found contaminated with water, which caused the failure of the engine components. The dealer argued that fuel adulteration is specifically excluded under the terms of the car’s warranty and therefore, the repairs were not covered. Despite this, the dealer had replaced parts at 50% cost, and the car ran smoothly for over a month and covered 3,870 km.
The manufacturer, Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd., contended that they should not be held liable since the dealership operates on a principal-to-principal basis and purchases vehicles from the manufacturer at full price. Moreover, the manufacturer pointed out that the complainant had already filed a commercial recovery suit before the Saket Commercial Court on the same cause of action, seeking recovery of ₹51,50,000. They maintained that the present consumer complaint amounted to misjoinder and duplication of proceedings.
Commission’s Observations and Findings
The Commission, after examining the facts and submissions, framed the issue of whether the manufacturer and dealer were deficient in service. The bench clarified the meaning of "deficiency" under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and emphasized that any assertion of manufacturing defect must be supported by appropriate expert evidence. The Commission observed: “On perusal of record, we find that no expert has been appointed after the inspection of the car in question... without any expert report, it cannot be concluded that the car in question has manufacturing defects.”
The Commission further relied on the National Commission’s ruling in M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd. v. Jatinder Singh Madan [Revision Petition No. 2622 of 2012], which held that repeated visits to a workshop cannot, by themselves, establish a manufacturing defect in the absence of an expert report.
Given the lack of expert opinion, the Commission held that there was no proof of any manufacturing defect. It also found that the repairs made by the dealer were prompt, and the parts had been replaced within three months. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of either the dealer or the manufacturer.
Finding no merit in the complaint, and in the absence of any expert report substantiating a manufacturing defect, the Commission dismissed the complaint. It held that the complainant had failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish a deficiency in service or a manufacturing fault in the vehicle. There was no order as to costs.
Appearance
For Complainant: Mr. Prakhar Dixit and Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocates
For Opposite Parties: Mr. Rajendra Mal Tatia and Mrs. Madhurima Tatia, King Stubb and Kasiva, Advocates
Cause Title: Veena Devi V. Scandia Motorcars Private Limited
Case No: Complaint Case 50/2022
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal [President], Hon’ble Ms. Pinki [Member (Judicial)]
