The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently imposed a fine of ₹15,000 on Honda and directed the company to replace a bike that was found to have a manufacturing defect in its suspension system [Markad Mahesh Aasaram v Fine Honda Dealer and Anr]As per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, if a complaint alleges a defect which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, there must be an expert report to prove the defect.However, a coram of presiding member Milind S Sonawane as well as members Nisha A Chavhan and Nagesh C Kumbre observed that numerous repair attempts by the respondents themselves indicated a manufacturing defect."But in the present case, vehicle is repaired by the respondents on so many occasions from the beginning. This fact shows that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle from the beginning and there is no need to call any expert report," the Commission said.The Commission was hearing an appeal against an order of the Aurangabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that had directed Honda to repair the defect within a month.Dissatisfied with the order, the complainant appealed to the State Commission.He informed the Commission that ever since he purchased the motorbike, its suspension system had not been functioning properly. Further, he stated that despite six attempts at repair, the problem persisted.Additionally, he alleged that the dealership from which he bought the bike had told him that there was no issue with the suspension, attributing the problem to low tire pressure.Subsequently, he lodged a complaint with Honda, stating that only the rear suspension, and not the front, had been replaced, which resulted in back problems.Advocate DT Kamble for the respondents relied on the decisions of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Chandeshwar Kumar Vs Tata Engineering Loco Motive Co Ltd and Mahendra Kumar Vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd & Anr to assert that without an expert report, a manufacturing defect could not be proved.The Commission observed that the District Commission had committed and error on factual aspects.It found that as per the record, the defect had been attended to time and again, leading to a conclusion that there was indeed a manufacturing defect.Further, it observed that the appellant purchased the vehicle for his comfort but after purchasing it, he suffered mentally, physically and financially as well."In our view, Ld. District Commission Aurangabad has committed the gross error by ignoring this issue," it said.Therefore, the Commission allowed the appeal and directed both the dealership and Honda to jointly pay ₹10,000 to the appellant towards mental and physical harassment Further, Honda was directed to replace the vehicle within 45 days.
TAGS: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Honda Manufacturing defect
