Repeated Repairs Do Not Automatically Imply Manufacturing Defect, Expert Evidence Needed: Haryana State Commission Allows Hero MotoCorp's Appeal

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a motorcycle manufactured by Hero MotoCorp from Jai Automobiles (“Dealer”). The motorcycle exhibited problems from the first day of purchase. When the Complainant contacted the Dealer, it charged Rs. 355/- after a minor repair. The motorcycle went out of order again after a few days and the Dealer replaced its wheel after charging Rs. 2531/-. The motorcycle malfunctioned once more and had to be brought to the Dealer by loading it on a tempo. The Complainant was instructed to return after two days. The Dealer again charged Rs. 271/- for the repairs.

The motorcycle broke down again after a few days and it was brought back to the Dealer. The Complainant was told to come after five days. This time, the Dealer charged Rs. 2038/- against a bill of Rs. 437/-. Within five to six days, the motorcycle malfunctioned again and remained in the same condition. The Dealer acknowledged an inherent manufacturing defect and a two-year guarantee was provided.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani, Haryana (“District Commission”) against Hero MotoCorp and the Dealer. They failed to appear before the proceedings. The District Commission directed Hero MotoCorp and the Dealer to replace the old motorcycle with a new one. Additionally, the Complainant was awarded Rs. 5000/- for harassment and litigation expenses. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Commission, Hero MotoCorp and the Dealer filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission”).

Observations of the Commission:

The State Commission held that the Complainant failed to provide an expert report to substantiate the presence of an inherent manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. It held that it was wrong on the part of the District Consumer to assume that multiple repairs and part replacements indicated an inherent defect.

The State Commission relied on Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & another [1 (2010) CPJ 235 (NC)] and TATA Motors Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goyal and Others [RP No. 2309 of 2008], which established that repeated repairs do not automatically imply a manufacturing defect in the absence of expert evidence. The State Commission also referred to Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra and Anr. [(2006) 4 SCC 644], where the Supreme Court held that defects in parts did not justify a vehicle replacement.

Given the lack of expert evidence to prove an inherent manufacturing defect, the State Commission rejected the Complainant's claim for a new motorcycle. However, it upheld the Rs. 5000/- compensation for harassment, acknowledging the Complainant's repeated visits to the Dealer and the vehicle's unsatisfactory performance. As a result, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the order to replace the old motorcycle but maintaining the compensation award.

Case Title: Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and Anr. vs Rajender Singh

Case No.: First Appeal No. 1060 of 2019

Advocate for the Appellants: Raj Kumar Narang

Advocate for the Complainant/Respondent in Appeal: None (Complainant in Person)

Date of Pronouncement: 22.07.2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order