-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a revision petition by Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, upholding the Uttar Pradesh State Commission’s directive for a vehicle replacement due to persistent manufacturing defects. The case highlighted the application of Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, emphasizing the limits of revisional jurisdiction in consumer disputes.
The vehicle, a Mahindra XUV-500, showed persistent ignition, braking, and locking issues shortly after purchase on December 7, 2011. Despite multiple repairs, the problems persisted, leading the complainant to seek legal recourse. The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, a decision upheld by the State Commission, prompting the manufacturer to file a revision petition at the NCDRC.
The court examined the vehicle’s repair history and expert reports, confirming ongoing mechanical issues. The continuous need for repairs indicated a clear manufacturing defect.
Expert testimony and job cards detailing the vehicle’s faults were reviewed. Despite the manufacturer’s objections, the evidence demonstrated significant deviations from expected standards, affirming the complainant’s claims.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the NCDRC noted its limited revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it does not allow for a reassessment of factual findings unless there is manifest error or oversight by the State Commission.
Decision: The NCDRC confirmed the State Commission’s order, mandating Mahindra & Mahindra to replace the defective vehicle or refund its cost, highlighting the manufacturer’s failure to rectify the defects despite multiple opportunities. The court dismissed the revision petition due to the absence of any jurisdictional error or material irregularity.
Date of Decision: April 5, 2024.
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. Manoj Kumar Sharma and Shiva Auto Car India Private Limited,
