The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently upheld an order of a State Commission directing Mahindra & Mahindra to either replace an XUV500 car found to have manufacturing defects or refund ₹13,20,000 to the purchaser. [Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v Manoj Kumar Sharma and Anr.]

Presiding Member Air vice-marshal (Retd.) J Rajendra observed that the orders of the District and State Commissions were well reasoned orders.

"This was primarily because of consistent and repeated documented faults as part of servicing and repairing itself as well as the expert report of Shri Prashant Kumar, Proprietor, Tire Wheel Experts and Software Engineer dated 10.07.2016 indicating serious problems. This established ‘manufacturing defect’ in the vehicle," the order dated April 5 stated.

NCDRC upholds order directing Mahindra to replace XUV500 or issue full refund of ₹13 lakh manufacturing defects

The Court was hearing an appeal by Mahindra against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

According to the complainant, issues with ignition, braking, lights, and auto central lock began to surface shortly after he purchased the car. Despite numerous attempts at repair, these problems persisted and allegedly led to an accident, causing further damage.

Subsequent repair efforts also failed to fix the car's issues, the complainant asserted. When he sought a replacement, both Mahindra and the car dealer failed to respond, even after receiving a legal notice. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

In reply, Mahindra stated that the car was sold by the dealer in perfect condition. Free servicing was also provided at relevant times and no defect was noticed in the car, it added.

The dealership also claimed that the car was running smoothly and was repaired whenever the complainant asked.

The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering a refund or replacement of the car.

Following Mahindra's appeal, the State Commission upheld the District Forum's decision. This led to the appeal by Mahindra before NCDRC.

Mahindra argued that if the car was defective, it would not have run 1.19 lakh kilometers (km) within six years of purchase.

Further, Mahindra contended that the assailed orders were contrary to Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act as it was for the complainant to to establish the claim for the total replacement supported by the opinion of an automobile expert that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect.

Mahindra further argued that the expert report that indicated serious problems was based only a visual inspection, without employing any testing equipment or facilities and hence was contrary to the prescribed procedure.

The complainant maintained that the expert report indicated a manufacturing defect and the defect was proved by 25 job cards that indicated various problems that surfaced and had to be repaired.

The Commission observed that the repeated repairs indicated repetitive problems faced by the complainant. It said that although the car had run a considerable distance, the grievance of the complainant was constant issues and repairs.

Thereafter, the Commission observed that orders of the District and State Commissions were well reasoned and based on evidence and arguments presented before them.

In this backdrop, it stated that the scope for revision under the Consumer Protection Act was very limited and in the presence of concurrent findings of facts, more so.

Accordingly, the Commission found no reason for interference and dismissed the appeal.

Mahindra & Mahindra was represented by advocates Anand S Jha and Parvez Rahman.

The complainant was represented by advocates KK Sharma and Payal Rajput.

[Read Order]