Mahindra & Mahindra And Its Dealer Held Liable For Failure To Replace Rusted Car Parts Despite Valid Warranty, Bangalore District Commission Orders Compensation

Brief Facts:

Mr J. Somnath (“Complainant”) purchased a New Bolero Power+ variant ZLX vehicle from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (“Mahindra”), making a payment of Rs.11,00,000/-. After six months, following the completion of the third free service, the Complainant observed rusting across various parts of the vehicle. Subsequently, the Complainant emailed the rusting pictures to the customer care of Mahindra. Despite initial non-response, Mahindra informed Sireesh Auto (Pvt) Ltd (“Dealer”) to address the issue, claiming approval for the replacement of affected components. The Complainant stated that the widespread rusting, occurring in unusual areas like the windshield, bonnet, doors, and boot space, suggested manufacturing defects and insisted on a complete vehicle replacement. The Complainant's request was denied by Mahindra and its dealer. Further, the vehicle faced repeated complete breakdowns in addition to corrosion of the metallic parts and components for which the Complainant incurred costs of Rs.10,406/-, Rs.1,888/- and Rs.7,090/- for repairing. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Mahindra and its dealer.

In response, Mahindra maintained that its vehicles undergo rigorous quality checks and trials, receiving approval from the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). It claimed that the Complainant had used the vehicle without any prior issues. Regarding the rusting complaint in September 2018, it contended that rusting was a natural process influenced by weather conditions beyond their control. Despite recommending the replacement of rusting parts, the Complainant insisted on complete vehicle replacement. It further argued that breakdowns reported by the Complainant in June, July, October, and November 2019 were due to the Complainant's failure to adhere to the recommended service schedule.

The dealer argued that it offered suitable solutions for replacing parts manufactured by Mahindra, but the Complainant delayed and avoided implementation. It maintained that there was no deficiency in its service.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted the Complainant's alleged manufacturing defects but failed to substantiate these claims with expert reports or opinions. The records indicate that Mahindra offered to replace the rusting parts with new parts manufactured by them, but the Complainant declined and insisted on a replacement of the entire vehicle or a refund of its value. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maruthi Udyog Vs Sushil Kumar Gabgotra and another (JT 2006 (4) SC 113), the District Commission held that a manufacturer cannot be compelled to replace a vehicle or refund its price solely due to rectifiable defects or parts replaceable under warranty.

However, acknowledging the admitted rusting of parts and the delay in rectifying defects by Mahindra and its dealer, the District Commission held Mahindra and its dealer liable to replace the rusted parts with new ones and rectify the defects free of cost under warranty. Therefore. the District Commission held Mahindra and its dealer liable for deficiency in services. Consequently, the directed Mahindra and its dealer to replace the defective/rusted parts with new ones to the satisfaction of the Complainant within two months.

Additionally, the District Commission directed them to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.