A recent ruling by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, in the case Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Ramesh Chander Sharma and Anr., established that if a consumer discovers a manufacturing defect in their purchased vehicle, they have the right to request a replacement. The Court clarified the distinction between a defect that develops during the car’s use and one that originates from the manufacturing process. While a manufacturer may be permitted to rectify a defect resulting from usage, they cannot escape liability for a manufacturing flaw present since the vehicle’s purchase.
“Repairs may be called for if the vehicles purchased during the course of its use suffers from a technical defect and not where the vehicle has manufacturing defect,” the Court said.
As background information, Ramesh Chander Sharma lodged a consumer complaint against Maruti and a car dealership, M/S Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt. Limited, Pathankot, accusing them of selling a faulty Maruti 800 car to him.
Sharma contended that the vehicle experienced a technical malfunction from the outset. He asserted that he promptly notified the dealership of this issue, but they repeatedly postponed resolving the matter, citing various excuses.
In the end, it was discovered that the vehicle’s engine had a manufacturing flaw. Consequently, the consumer requested a replacement for the defective vehicle.
Maruti, however, refused to provide a replacement and suggested repairing the defect instead. Subsequently, Sharma approached the consumer forum, seeking either a replacement or a refund.
Both the district and State consumer courts ruled in favor of Sharma, directing Maruti to either replace the car or refund the full amount of ₹1.94 lakh paid for the vehicle, along with interest and costs.
This was challenged by Maruti before the High Court which proceeded to uphold the consumer court orders.
“Indisputably, the vehicle i.e. Maruti Car 800 CC purchased by respondent No. 1 was suffering from a manufacturing defect from the very beginning and, therefore, as is rightly held by the Forum, it was a case of replacement of the vehicle by a new vehicle and not a case of repair,” the High Court held.
In the end, it was discovered that the vehicle’s engine had a manufacturing flaw. Consequently, the consumer requested a replacement for the defective vehicle.
Maruti, however, refused to provide a replacement and suggested repairing the defect instead. Subsequently, Sharma approached the consumer forum, seeking either a replacement or a refund.
Both the district and State consumer courts ruled in favor of Sharma, directing Maruti to either replace the car or refund the full amount of ₹1.94 lakh paid for the vehicle, along with interest and costs.
“The Forum has, therefore, taken a correct view of the matter and directed the petitioner along with respondent No. 2 to either replace the vehicle by new one or in alternative refund the amount of Rs. 1,94,195/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed,” the High Court said.
