Expert Opinion Or Government Inspection Required To Substantiate Manufacturing Defect Claim: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant purchased a radial drill machine from Emtex Machinery/manufacturer for Rs. 8,00,000 for professional use. The machine was installed but did not function properly from the beginning. Despite contacting the manufacturer multiple times for inspection and repair, the issues were not resolved. A technician sent by the manufacturer identified an electrical fitting issue and a crack in the main shaft but did not fix them. The complainant's work was halted, causing substantial financial loss. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint and directed the manufacturer to refund the cost of the machine and pay Rs. 2,00,000. Aggrieved by the District Forum's order, the manufacturer appealed to the State Commission of Maharastra, which reduced the compensation amount to Rs. 1,00,000. The manufacturer, however, filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

Contentions of the manufacturer

The manufacturer denied the complainant's claims, stating he bought the machine for business purposes and thus is not a consumer under the Act. The manufacturer argued that they never received the complainant's letter and only received one photo of the issue, making it difficult to assess. They asserted the machine was not defective, had been used for several months, and the claimed daily loss of Rs. 5,000 was false.

Observations by the National Commission

The National Commission observed that the complainant purchased a Radial Drilling Machine from the manufacturer for Rs. 8 Lakh, which allegedly did not function properly from the start. The issue remained unresolved despite notifying the manufacturer about defects, including a crack in the main shaft. However, no expert opinion or government inspection was sought to substantiate a manufacturing defect claim. The commission highlighted that the complainant had failed to procure expert opinion or government inspection to substantiate their claim of a defect. Moreover, no conclusive evidence was presented that the machine had not been adequately repaired within the warranty terms. Due to these reasons, the Commission found that the lower forums had erred in concluding that there was a manufacturing defect without following the proper procedure under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, which required expert analysis or testing to establish such defects.

Therefore, the National Commission allowed the revision petition and dismissed the State Commission's order.

Case Title: M/S. Emtex Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. M.I.C Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: R.P. No. 315/2017