Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The main thrust of the line of argument taken by the petitioners revolves around the fact that there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The onus to prove the manufacturing defect is on the complainant and the same should be proved by expert evidence, in the absence of which no liability can be attributed to the petitioner to compensate the complainant. On the other hand, the State Commission in their order have relied upon the definition of defect as contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and stated that a complainant is liable to be compensated, if there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, etc. of the vehicle. The State Commission observed in their order as follows:-
5. In our view, it is misconceived notion that any vehicle for that purpose any goods can be ordered to be replaced or the cost can be ordered to be refunded only if they suffer from manufacturing defect. There is no such concept of goods suffering from manufacturing defect enshrined by the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Protection Act only defines the word defect by way of Section 2(1) (f) of the Act which is to the following effect:-
Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

If the defect continues for months together and years together and erupts time and again no other inference can be drawn than that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect as defects which are not of manufacturing nature can be rectified or removed without their recurrence or without giving any further inconvenience to the consumer.

7. The State Commission have further observed in their order:-

..Bare perusal of the definition of word defect shows that any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
9. Thus in our view whenever a manufacturer of the vehicle offers to sell the brand new vehicle to the consumer there is an implied contract as to the claim of the manufacturer that the vehicle being sold by it does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained.
10. The audacity and impunity on the part of the respondent to rub salt on the wounds of the complainant that he should prove that he had been visiting time and again is demonstrated from their reply sent by both respondent as well as reply of notice and other notice sent by the complainant to the respondent No.1. For such type of manufacturers and service providers the Supreme court has in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65 come down heavily and called upon the Consumer Forum and Commissions established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to not only compensate the consumer as to the actual loss suffered by him but also to compensate him as to the mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, physical discomfort, loss of business, loss of time by taking vehicle time and again to the workshop.