Manufacturing defect: What you should know

Six months ago, I purchased a new Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV). However, it has been giving me problems from day one. Despite several visits to the service centre, the defects have not been rectified, nor is the dealer/manufacturer willing to replace the vehicle. I have now decided to get the help of the consumer court and was wondering what kind of evidence to I need to back up my complaint.

First and foremost, you must have all the ‘job cards’ or the records created at the service centre showing your persistent complaints about the car and the various repairs undertaken by the dealer. This is the most important evidence to show that from the very beginning, the car had inherent defects and despite rectifications, the problems continue to persist.

It is equally important for you to get an expert, may be an automobile engineer, to examine the job cards and the car and give you in writing, his/her opinion on the vehicle. This is absolutely essential for prosecuting your case before the consumer court. If you have written letters to the dealer and the manufacturer asking them to replace the car, those letters and their reply, if any, would also be important.

The consumer courts have also laid stress on the importance of an expert’s opinion in a number of cases. In Baljeet Kaur Vs Divine Motors (RP NO 1336 of 2017, decided on June 8, 2017), for example, a Coordinate Bench of the National Commission emphasised that: “When a manufacturing defect is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant.” And there is no substitute for an expert opinion to determine manufacturing defect, the Commission said.

I must also mention that in Md Hassan Khalid Haidar Vs Gen Motors India Pvt Ltd (RP No 525 of 2018, order dated June 8, 2018) the Commission did not award compensation on the ground that the car started giving problems only nine to 10 months after usage and run of over 25,000 km. And those defects were always rectified to the satisfaction of the consumer. “If the vehicle had manufacturing defect it should have manifested soon after purchase,” the commission said.

In Nuzhat Vs Dee Dee Motors Private Ltd, the Commission defined manufacturing defect as a “defect which persistently comes up and cannot be rectified even after attempts made by the dealer”. So these are two basic criteria that the Commission looks at while deciding cases pertaining to defective vehicles, besides the job cards and the opinion of an expert.

Can you recall a recent case that would help me with my case?

Nuzhat Vs Dee Dee Motors, that I have mentioned above (RP No 1053 of 2016, date of the order: December 3, 2019), would be an appropriate case for your to quote.

In this case too, the car had persistent problems, such as low pick up, noise in the engine, slipping of the clutch, doors opening while the car was in motion, etc. from the very beginning. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar, directed the manufacturer and the dealer to replace the defective vehicle with a new one or else pay the cost of the vehicle, besides Rs25,000 towards damages. As this was set aside by the State Consumer Commission, the consumer filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

The manufacturer’s contention here was that there was no manufacturing defect warranting replacement of the vehicle and the district forum had ignored the report of the expert submitted by the manufacturer to this effect and instead relied on the report of SG Motors provided by an unqualified person and submitted by the consumer.

Since experts from both the parties had given conflicting reports, the Commission here relied on the ‘job cards’ that showed persistent problems in the car ever since its purchase on April 25, 2008. In fact, within just two months of purchase, the vehicle’s clutch handle, clutch plate and pressure plate were changed, the Commission pointed out. Yet, despite repeated repairs, the problems were not resolved. Here, on the ground that the Ambassador model in question was now outdated and not in the market, the Commission directed the manufacturer to take back the old car and refund Rs3,75,000 being the cost of the car less 10 per cent depreciation, but with interest at 9 per cent per annum calculated from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realisation, along with costs of Rs10,000.