Pranav B Prem

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, has ruled that frequent repairs or workshop visits alone are insufficient to establish an inherent manufacturing defect in a vehicle. A bench comprising Mr. Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) allowed an appeal filed by Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. (“Skoda”) and set aside the State Commission’s order directing a refund and compensation to the complainant.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a complaint filed by Mr. Anuj Gupta, who had purchased a Volkswagen Vento Highline from M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 11,88,900/-. The vehicle underwent multiple repairs at Volkswagen Chandigarh's workshop, prompting the complainant to allege a manufacturing defect. Dissatisfied with the service and vehicle performance, he approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, seeking relief. The State Commission appointed Punjab Engineering College as a technical expert and subsequently ruled in favor of the complainant. The State Commission directed Skoda and Volkswagen Chandigarh to refund Rs. 8,91,675/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs. Aggrieved by this decision, Skoda challenged the order before the NCDRC.

Also Read: “Acquittal After Full Consideration of Evidence Cannot Be Brushed Aside”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Dismissal, Says “Disciplinary Authority Ignored Critical Contradictions”

Skoda’s Arguments in Appeal

Skoda contended that:

1. The alleged issues in the vehicle were due to normal wear and tear, considering the car had been extensively used.

2. All repairs were conducted under warranty conditions, and the complainant had accepted the vehicle post-repairs.

3. A manufacturing defect is distinct from routine defects and must render the vehicle inoperable; the car in question had been driven for 1,60,000 kilometers.

4. Skoda’s relationship with Volkswagen Chandigarh was on a ‘Principal-to-Principal’ basis, absolving it of liability for service deficiencies at the workshop.

NCDRC’s Observations and Ruling

The NCDRC, after evaluating the evidence, observed that:

1. The vehicle had been extensively used for nearly three years and had covered 1,60,376 kilometers when last brought to the workshop.

2. Frequent repairs or repeated visits to a workshop do not automatically indicate an inherent manufacturing defect warranting vehicle replacement or a full refund.

3. A vehicle under warranty entitles the owner to part replacements per warranty terms but does not guarantee the replacement of the entire vehicle.

The Commission emphasized the procedure for determining a manufacturing defect as outlined in Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. If a defect cannot be conclusively established without testing, the District Commission must send a sealed sample for laboratory analysis. The term “appropriate laboratory,” under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, refers to one recognized by the Central or State Government or established under law for conducting defect analysis.

In this case, the NCDRC noted that the vehicle had remained dismantled in the workshop for nearly two years before it was examined. This prolonged disuse and disassembly rendered an accurate assessment of potential defects impossible. Furthermore, the Punjab Engineering College report merely suggested that the vehicle “may” have a manufacturing defect, which was insufficient to conclusively establish the claim.

Also Read: “District Authority Cannot Probe Title Disputes Under Rule 144”: AP High Court Sets Aside NOC Denial, Says “Any Enquiry Beyond Its Power Would Amount to Abdication of Duty”

Given these factors, the NCDRC concluded that the complainant failed to provide conclusive evidence of a manufacturing defect. It held that the State Commission’s ruling was based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of settled legal principles. Consequently, the appeal filed by Skoda was allowed, and the State Commission’s order was set aside.

Verdict

The NCDRC allowed Skoda’s appeal and setaside the State Commission’s order, holding that the complainant failed to establish the presence of a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. As a result, the direction to refund the vehicle cost and pay compensation was set aside, providing relief to Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.

Appearance

For the Appellant: Ms Ekta Bhasin, Advocate

For Respondent No.1: Mr Siddharth Mittal, Mr Sumit Sharma, Advocates

For Respondent No.2: Ms Aditi Srivastava, Advocate

Cause Title: Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. V. Anuj Gupta and Anr.

Case No: First Appeal No. NC/FA/258/2022

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Subhash Chandra [Presiding Member], Hon'ble AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.) [Member]

[Read/Download order]