Consumer protection: Challenges of prolonged litigation, low compensation

Bahadur Singh purchased a Mitsubishi Lancer diesel vehicle manufactured by Hindustan Motors. It was purchased for Rs 9,32,829 from Northern Motors Pvt. Ltd., an authorised dealer.

 

Within a few months of purchase, while Singh was driving the vehicle on January 7, 2005, he noticed noise and excessive fuel consumption. He sent the vehicle to the dealer to address these defects, as it was within the warranty period.

 

The dealer attended to the vehicle, but the same defects kept recurring, requiring repeated repairs. On June 21, 2005, the vehicle came to an abrupt halt due to engine seizure. It had to be towed. Since the defects persisted even after two engine overhauls, the vehicle remained parked with Northern Motors.

 

Singh first approached the District Consumer Commission, which ordered the replacement of the car with a new defect-free vehicle. Additionally, the dealer was directed to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation.

 

The order was challenged in appeal. The Punjab State Commission modified the order, directing that only the engine be replaced, not the entire vehicle. In addition to the Rs 50,000 imposed by the District Commission on the dealer, the State Commission awarded a further amount of Rs 1 lakh as compensation, payable by the manufacturer.

 

Hindustan Motors, the manufacturer, challenged the order by filing a revision before the National Commission. The manufacturer and the dealer argued that the problems arose because the vehicle had met with an accident. They pointed out that the vehicle had functioned properly for a few months, indicating no manufacturing defect. Even the expert appointed by the District Commission had not attributed the faults to manufacturing defects.

 

The National Commission observed that in the absence of evidence, it would be incorrect to conclude that the vehicle had met with an accident merely because the insurer was made a party to the proceedings.

 

The National Commission also noted the evidence revealed that the engine had seized, requiring extensive repairs and overhauls. The vehicle had to be repeatedly sent to the garage, proving that defects kept recurring. Subsequently, the vehicle stalled again and remained parked in the garage during the pendency of the dispute.

 

The Commission distinguished between an “ordinary defect” and a “manufacturing defect”, explaining that the former can be rectified by replacing the defective part, whereas the latter would be a fundamental defect inherent in the manufacturing process. A “manufacturing defect” would require expert evidence to establish. Since no expert evidence was provided, the National Commission held that a “manufacturing defect” had not been established, but the repeated major repairs constituted a “deficiency in service”.

 

Accordingly, in its order dated December 2, 2024, delivered by Justice A.P. Sahi and Bharatkumar Pandya, the National Commission observed that the vehicle had remained parked for 20 years during the pendency of the dispute. This made replacing parts, which may have become obsolete, impractical. The Commission ordered the dealer and the manufacturer to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation and directed that the vehicle scrap be handed over to Singh.

 

The writer is a consumer activist