Feedback

Mahindra XUV500 Manufacturing Defect Case: NCDRC Upholds Consumer's Rights

Case Title: Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 1239 of 2022
Court: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi
Date: April 5, 2024
Presiding Member: AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.)

Case Overview

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed Mahindra & Mahindra’s Revision Petition against the orders of the State and District Consumer Commissions, which had directed the company to replace a defective vehicle or refund its cost along with compensation.

Background

Vehicle Purchased:
Manoj Kumar Sharma bought a Mahindra XUV500 JC for ₹13,32,000 on December 7, 2011.

Issues with the Vehicle:

• The car exhibited multiple defects, including ignition problems, brake noise, suspension issues, and non-functioning cruise control.
• Despite repeated repairs and assurances from the seller (Shiva Auto Car India Pvt. Ltd.), the defects persisted.
• These issues led to an accident in December 2012, followed by several more mechanical failures.

Complaint Filed:

• Manoj Kumar Sharma filed a complaint with the District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad, seeking a replacement vehicle or a refund, along with compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

Lower Courts' Decisions

District Consumer Forum's Order (2017):

• Directed Mahindra & Mahindra to:
  • Replace the defective vehicle or refund ₹13,32,000.
  • Pay 10% interest annually from the date of purchase if the refund was delayed.
  • Provide ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 for litigation costs.

State Consumer Commission's Order (2022):

• Upheld the District Forum's decision, stating the vehicle had manufacturing defects that could not be resolved despite multiple repairs.

Arguments Presented

Mahindra & Mahindra (Petitioner):

• Argued that the vehicle was used extensively (1.19 lakh km in 6 years) and was not defective.
• Claimed the expert report submitted by the complainant lacked credibility as it relied on visual inspections without proper testing.
• Cited judgments supporting the notion that mere dissatisfaction or extensive use does not establish a manufacturing defect.

Manoj Kumar Sharma (Respondent):

• Presented expert reports highlighting persistent defects in the vehicle.
• Pointed out that 25 job cards documented recurring issues.
• Emphasized loss of confidence in the vehicle due to repeated breakdowns and safety concerns.

NCDRC Judgment

Rejection of Mahindra's Petition:

• The NCDRC affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower forums.
• It found no error, material irregularity, or jurisdictional overreach in their decisions.

Key Findings:

• Persistent issues such as ignition failure and brake noise from the beginning constituted a manufacturing defect.
• The vehicle's usage did not negate the existence of defects, as the complainant was compelled to use the car despite its shortcomings.
• The manufacturer's failure to disprove the expert report or resolve the issues demonstrated negligence.

Legal Precedents Considered:

• Cited relevant judgments, including Hyundai Motors India Ltd. vs. Affiliated East-West Press Pvt. Ltd. and Skoda Auto Volkswagen India vs. Meghna Corporation Pvt. Ltd., supporting the complainant's case.

Conclusion

The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by Mahindra & Mahindra and upheld the orders of the State and District Consumer Forums. Key directives include:

1. Replace the vehicle or refund ₹13,32,000 within 60 days.
2. Pay 10% interest annually from the purchase date in case of delay.
3. Provide ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹5,000 as litigation costs.

Key Takeaways

Consumer Protection Strengthened:

• Reaffirms the accountability of manufacturers for delivering quality products and resolving defects promptly.

Importance of Documentation:

• Comprehensive records of repairs and expert reports played a pivotal role in establishing the manufacturing defect.

Limited Scope of Revision: