The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh recently held that repeated mechanical issues faced by a consumer with a newly purchased vehicle and the resulting inconvenience can amount to deficiency in service, even in the absence of proof of a manufacturing defect. A Bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member) partly allowed a consumer complaint filed against Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorised dealer Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., directing them to pay ₹4 lakh as compensation to the complainant.
The complaint was filed by Munir Kaushal, who had purchased a Ford Endeavour 3.2L Diesel Titanium+ 4x4 Automatic vehicle from Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh, on 11 April 2019 for a total price of ₹32,97,000. The vehicle was delivered to him on 26 April 2019 and was financed through a loan from HDB Financial Services Limited. In addition to the purchase price, the complainant paid ₹98,075 towards insurance and ₹92,007 for registration of the vehicle with the Registering and Licensing Authority at Shimla.
According to the complainant, within three to four months of the purchase, the vehicle began developing electrical issues. The battery of the vehicle allegedly started draining automatically, which resulted in repeated starting problems. The complainant stated that he informed the opposite parties about the issue, after which the vehicle was jump-started on several occasions and the battery was replaced. However, the problem allegedly continued despite repeated repairs.
The complainant further stated that in January 2020 the vehicle again developed a snag due to which the battery discharged automatically. He contacted the helpline of the opposite parties and was advised to get the vehicle jump-started through local assistance and bring it to the authorised service centre for inspection. The vehicle was thereafter taken to the workshop of Saluja Motors for examination. The complainant alleged that the service staff attempted extensive dismantling of the vehicle, including opening the back light, boot cover, dashboard and infotainment system, in an attempt to identify the cause of the defect, yet the issue remained unresolved.
It was also alleged that the complainant had repeatedly communicated his grievances through several e-mails, expressing dissatisfaction with the repeated repairs and the failure of the opposite parties to detect the actual defect in the vehicle. According to him, he was compelled to rely on taxi services whenever the vehicle was kept at the service centre for inspection.
The complainant further claimed that the battery of the vehicle had been replaced six to seven times and that several components, including the SYNC/APIM module, Front Control Interface Module (FCIM), Panel Fuse Junction and Front Control Display Interface Module (FCDIM), had also been replaced. Despite these replacements, the electrical issues allegedly continued. Contending that the vehicle suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect, the complainant sought refund of the vehicle’s cost along with the insurance and registration charges, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation expenses.
Ford India Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement, denied the allegation of manufacturing defect and contended that the complainant had not produced any expert evidence or technical material to establish that the battery drainage issue resulted from a manufacturing defect. It was submitted that whenever the complainant raised a complaint, the vehicle was inspected and repaired by the dealership in accordance with standard procedures. The manufacturer also argued that the battery was not covered under its warranty and that the complainant had failed to establish any defect attributable to the manufacturing process.
The manufacturer further stated that when the issue was reported again in May 2020, a data logger system was installed in coordination with the authorised dealership to scientifically determine the cause of the battery drainage. Observational tests conducted thereafter revealed fungus formation on the circuit board connected to the battery system, which was identified as the probable cause of the starting problem. The manufacturer claimed that the complainant rejected the technical findings without producing any expert opinion. It was also pointed out that the vehicle had run approximately 15,000 kilometres, which demonstrated that it was being used regularly and was not suffering from any inherent defect.
Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., the authorised dealer, also denied the allegations and submitted that no complaint had been raised before the second scheduled service of the vehicle. According to the dealer, the starting issue was reported for the first time on 24 January 2020 during the second service, and the vehicle was inspected as per the manufacturer’s instructions. The dealer stated that the battery and other parameters were found satisfactory and that the vehicle was handed over after inspection.
The dealer further stated that on subsequent occasions, including 12 February 2020, 4 March 2020, 30 October 2020 and 1 February 2021, the complainant reported starting issues. Each time the vehicle was thoroughly examined, including battery checks and drain tests, and even inspected by engineers from the manufacturer. As a precautionary and goodwill measure, certain components such as the monitor screen, bezel radio, relay, panel fuse junction and the battery were replaced. However, according to the dealer, no inherent defect was detected during these inspections.
After hearing the parties and examining the material on record, the Commission noted that the complainant had alleged that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect due to repeated battery drainage and starting issues. However, the Commission observed that the complainant had not produced any expert opinion or independent automobile inspection report to substantiate the allegation of an inherent manufacturing defect.
The Commission observed that “mere replacement of parts under warranty does not ipso facto establish a manufacturing defect in the vehicle as a whole.” It also noted that the vehicle had undergone testing, including examination through a data logger device, and had been used for approximately 15,000 kilometres, indicating that it remained in regular use.
At the same time, the Commission observed that the complainant had repeatedly approached the service centre and that several components of the vehicle had been replaced during the warranty period. The Commission held that even though a manufacturing defect had not been conclusively established, the repeated recurrence of starting issues and multiple visits to the workshop caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
The Commission therefore held that while refund or replacement of the vehicle could not be granted in the absence of proof of manufacturing defect, the circumstances indicated deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It observed that repeated visits to the workshop within the warranty period and persistent unresolved issues resulted in harassment and inconvenience to the consumer.
Accordingly, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh partly allowed the complaint and directed Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd. to jointly pay ₹4,00,000 as lump-sum compensation to the complainant for harassment and litigation expenses within 45 days. The Commission further directed that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order until realization.
Cause Title: Munir Kaushal v. Ford India Pvt Ltd. and others
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/294/2021
Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member)
