The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held Mahindra and Mahindra and the dealership liable for deficiency in service for allegedly not repairing a man’s “almost brand new” car, which started to develop defects a few months after purchase and has ordered the company to pay Rs 1 lakh to the consumer.
NCDRC president Justice A P Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandyawere hearing the man’s complaint alleging that his Mahindra Marazzo car, which was bought in February 2020, started showing signs of defects soon after.
“We also find that there is no proof or evidence of the alleged contaminated diesel being collected from the same vehicle with any information to the Petitioner/Complainant or being sent for any test. All this was done unilaterally by the dealer, and therefore, to hold the Petitioner/Complainant responsible for having used adulterated fuel is not based on any cogent or reliable evidence,” the commission held on July 1.
The man, after the defect surfaced, had approached the company dealership for repair. However, he was reportedly asked to pay Rs 1.63 lakh, after offering a discount of Rs 88,955, towards the repair offered by the dealership. The dealership claimed on October 21, 2021, that “adulterated fuel” was being used in the vehicle, traces of which were found in a lab report.
The man, contesting the lab report and the cost of repairing the car, approached a Madhya Pradesh district consumer commission in 2021. He claimed that the report, finally issued on November 16, 2021, could not have been cited a month earlier. The district consumer body, however, dismissed his complaint on the ground of adulterated fuel use and ruled out any manufacturing defect.
Following the dismissal, the man moved the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which held that he hadn’t tendered any counter-report to the lab report being contested.
‘Almost brand new’
The man had purchased a Mahindra Marazzo Car from the dealer at Rewa, Madhya Pradesh on February 21, 2020. It came on record that the vehicle was serviced thrice at regular intervals at the authorised service centre, and it was maintained well.
Story continues below this ad
On September 9, 2021, however, while the man was driving the vehicle to Bhopal, the engine started emitting “black smoke”. The man subsequently took the vehicle to the authorised service centre at Sagar.
He was reportedly informed that there was a problem with the vehicle’s turbo system, which was being replaced, but the problem still continued and he was asked to pay Rs 1.6 lakh towards repair of the vehicle as it was discovered that the defect had occurred because usage of adulterated fuel.
The NCDRC found no explanation from either the manufacturer or the dealer on how they had learnt about the presence of adulterated fuel on October 21, 2021, when the report was prepared on November 8, 2021, and issued on November 16, 2021.
“We fail to understand that when the test report was not available on 21.10.2021, then how did the Dealer come to know of the Chlorine content in the analysis of the test report which was finally issued on 16.11.2021. The report with this heavy doubt renders its contents highly improbable, and the recital about the report in the letter dated 21.10.2021 is highly improbable,” it held.
Story continues below this ad
The NCDRC held that the vehicle had serious defects covered under the warranty period and ordered the manufacturing company to replace the engine. The dealer, on the other hand, was directed to carry out all other repairs free of cost, and return the vehicle in fully running condition to the man within two months of the verdict.
The commission ordered the manufacturer and the dealership to pay Rs 1 lakh to the man.
The NCDRC held that the replacement of the turbo component of the engine also did not yield any fruitful result, and the defect in the performance of the engine continued.
“Neither the Manufacturer nor the Dealer got it probed except for relying on the fuel test report referred to above and putting the blame on the owner. This was a clear deficiency in service on their part by relying on improbable evidence. An offer for partial payment or discounted repair charge was no suitable compensation or solace to remove the admitted defects of the vehicle that was almost brand new and had run only for 18 to 19 months,” the NCDRC said.
Story continues below this ad
The NCDRC cautioned that, in case of non-compliance, the “entire price of the vehicle” paid by the man will be refunded by the respondents, the manufacturer and the dealer jointly and severally.
Takeaway
The ruling establishes the obligation of companies to ensure proper services and compliance with warranties, and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territoriesor call the National Consumer Helpline at1915for assistance.
