Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

throttle, that the said scooter achieves is 85 KMPH. The Complainant argues that above defects in the vehicle are manufacturing defects and the OPs should be held liable for the same. He has prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the OPs to replace the said scooter.
We have heard the arguments and perused the record. The Complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the said scooter, but he has not filed any document to indicate the exact nature of manufacturing defect. He has only stated in the complaint that he has talked to several mechanics, who have confirmed that the said scooter has manufacturing defect, but there is report furnished by an independent engineer indicating the nature and extent of manufacturing defect in the said scooter. We suggested to the Complainant that let the vehicle be sent for independent technical expert examination at the Government Industrial Training Institute, Pusa, Delhi and the let the Ld. Principal, ITI, Pusa file its report before further consideration of this complaint, but the Complainant refused for such technical examination of the vehicle in question. He insisted that this Commission must issue notice to the OPs who shall first give evidence that the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect.
For issuing any notice, the Complainant has to prima facie establish his case. The argument that OPs should deny allegations of the complainant and the Commission should issue notice on merely allegation of manufacturing defect, is not the legally correct approach. While filing complaint, the documents so attached and pleading of the complaint should prima facie establish existence of consumer dispute. In the case in hand, the documents and pleading only makes allegations and there is nothing on record to even hint towards existence of manufacturing defect in the said scooter At this stage, we would like to refer to the judgment of Honble Suprene Court in the matter of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra [(2006) 4 SCC 644] in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the defects is not in various parts in the car, the replacement of entire vehicle cannot be justified. Further, in the same case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also opined that when the Complainant refuses to get the vehicle inspected for ascertaining the defect, then the manufacturing defect in the vehicle cannot be assumed. This DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 9 FA/120/2022 D.O.D.: 05.11.2024 MR. AJAY KUMAR VS. HONDA MOTORCYCLE & SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.
In the case in hand, the Complainant has merely made certain allegations and have not filed any report of the independent technical expert to prima facie establish that there is any manufacturing defect in the said scooter He has also refused to get the vehicle inspected by an independent technical expert as suggested by the Commission.
Before we could pass this order, the Complainant has filed the copy of the job sheet of the first service of the said scooter and has also placed on the record the order passed by Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Tata Motors vs Rajesh Tyagi [NCDRC RP No. 1030 of 2008, decided on 03.12.2013]. Complainant states that in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Tata Motors case (supra), this Commission cannot insist on prior filing of report of the independent technical expert to prima facie establish any manufacturing defect in the said scooter. The facts of the case do not apply to the case on hand. In the case of Tata Motors case (supra), the defects OCcurred within a few days of taking the delivery of the car, when the complainant noticed presence of water inside the car on the floor area under DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 9 FA/120/2022 D.O.D.: 05.11.2024 MR. AJAY KUMAR VS. HONDA MOTORCYCLE & SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

In the case in hand, the Complainant has not placed any document to substantiate his claim that the said scooter is having any manufacturing defect. The job sheet, which has been filed today, also indicates that the Complainant complained about some whistling noise and vibration at high speed of the said scooter. But there is no document to suggest that such sound and vibration is because of some manufacturing defect in the said scooter.