BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE

REDRESSAL COMISSION, NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/805/2023

IN THE MATTER OF: -

CHITRALEKHA SAHU .. APPEALLANT

VERSUS

MAHADEVA CARS PRIVATE ..RESPONDENTS

LIMITED AND ANR.

WRITTEN SYNOPSIS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

NO. 1

I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That the Respondent No. 1 is a company registered
under the Companies Act, 1956 which is an exclusive
dealer for sales and after sales service and marketing
of four wheelers including vehicles manufactured by
Respondent No. 2 Renault India Private limited.
2. That the Appellant purchased the Duster Vehicle No.
CG-04-LG=9199 for Rs. 12,71,950/- from the
Respondent No. 1 is the car dealer, Mahadeva Cars
Private Limited and the same was manufactured by
Respondent No. 2.
3. That the vehicle was given for servicing for the first
time on 18.06.2016 and second time on the 05.12.2016
on the complaints regarding AC, average, horn and
some other problems.
4. That the Applicant first complained about the steering
jam of the vehicle in question on the 08.06.2017 after 1
year and 1 month of driving the vehicle for 16,413
kilometeres after purchasing the vehicle in which the
Respondent No. 1 shoeing high levels of service,
replaced the pressuring pipe in the steering and
rectifies the problem in the steering and the applicant
received the vehicle with complete faith and the
applicant went away after taking delivery of the vehicle
with full satisfaction.
5. That the same is confirmed by the Applicants
document Repair Order dated 08.06.2017 which is
attached herewith as Annexure .. and during this time,
no problem of any sort was noticed during this period
of time thereby substantiating high and efficient service
to the Applicant under every possible effort.
6. That the Appellant alleged that an accident took place
while coming from Mahasamund to Raipur due to
which the vehicle needed repair however, no such
accident took place because there is no police report or
insurance claim whatsoever in this regard to prove the
same.
7. That no problem of any sort was observed until the
next servicing on 13.03.2018 i.e. after a span of 9
months 5 days in which complaints regarding steering,
low average, brake and AC were made and the
Respondent No. 1 carried on immediate investigation
of the complaint made by the Appellant however, when
the vehicle in question was checked, there was no AC
 problem which is substantiated by the repair order
dated 13.03.2018 herewith attached as Annexure ..
8. That the problem faced by the Applicant was a
common problem and the Respondent No. 1 even
replaced the steering pressure pipe for free.
9. That the Applicant visited the service center of the
Respondent No. 1 several times before 13.03.208 but
never complained of anything until that day and as far
as the average is concerned, it depends on the manner
of driving the vehicle.
10. That there was neither any deficiency in service
on part of the Respondent No. 1 whatsoever nor there
was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle
whatsoever.
11. That the Appellant filed Complaint case No.
280/2018 before the Ld. District Commission, Raipur
and the Ld. Commission vide order dated 17.02.2021
allowed the complaint and ordered complete
replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle of similar
value and quality or value of the sold vehicle to the
Appellant alongwith Rs. 5000 for mental harassment
and Rs. 2000 as litigation expenses within one month.
12. That, aggrieved by the order of the District
Commission, the Respondent No. 1 filed First
Appeal/2022/160 and the Hon’ble State Commission
vide order dated 09.01.2023 partially admitted the
same and ordered that:
 A. That the vehicle has already been driven for
more than 32,000 kilomentres as on the date when
the argument was being presented.

B. That since the vehicle was repaired free of cost during

the warranty period and that there was no problem pertaining
to the steering of the vehicle and that there is no such
provision as to ordering new vehicle for the same value or
the same value of the vehicle and the same is completely
arbitrary and not justified and not in accordance with the
warranty and thus the order of the District Commission
deserved to be set aside.

C. That the problem caused due to the oil leakage was

completely repaired on 31.10.2017 without any charges
and on 07.11.2017, the problem of fluid in the power
steering was also repaired free of cost and that vehicle and
the problem of steering jam was made and rectified due to
which the Appellant is still in possession of the said vehicle
and that it has already been driven more than 32,000
kilometres and being regularly used by the family of the
Appellant.

D. That only the working capacity of the steering of the car

has been questioned and there is no evidence of
significant manufacturing defect and that the vehicle is still
in possession of the Appellant.

E. The complete replacement of the streering of the

vehicle within on month from the date of presentation
 of the vehicle if the said vehicle is presented within 1
month from the date of the order.
F. Rs. 20,000/- as mental compensation to the Appellant
and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.

GROUNDS:
1. That the said Order passed by the Hon’ble State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Chattisgarh is correct, and not bad in law and
therefore is liable to be upheld before the Hon’ble
National Commission based on the following
grounds:
2. That there was no irregularity on part of the
Respondent No. 1 which is confirmed by the
Appellant by stating the fact that the complete
payment was duly made in time in furtherance of
the dealing.
3. That the Appellant had already driven the vehicle
for approximately 26,034 kms (Twenty Six
Thousand Thirty Four kilometers) as on
13.03.2018 and brought in the vehicle with the
alleged defects which did not exist actually with
the bad intention of taking unfair advantage of
the warranty which covered any damage
occurred to the vehicle within 2 years or covering
50,000 kms whichever was earlier.
 4. That this Hon’ble court in the case of Skoda
Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. Anuj
Gupta and Anr. dated 28.02.2025 has held that
frequent repairs do not amount to there being a
manufacturing defect in the vehicle necessitating
the vehicle manufacturer to replace the vehicle or
to refund its cost. The relevant excerpt from the
judgement is as follows:
“13. Further, the law is well established
that the mere fact of frequent repairs or
references to a workshop of a vehicle
alone does not amount to there being an
inherent manufacturing defect
necessitating the vehicle manufacturer
liable to replace the vehicle or to refund
its cost. A vehicle is covered under
warranty and under the terms of warranty
the vehicle owner is entitled to the
replacement of parts covered by warranty
as per the terms and conditions of the
Policy.”

A copy of the same is attached herewith as Annexure ..

5. That the position in this regard has been

reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of
6. That this Hon’ble Court in the case of TATA
Motors Ltd. v. Sharad, 2016 SCC OnLine
NCDRC 1600 reiterated that a vehicle which has
already been used so far and is still being used
by the Complainant, which is more than 30,000
kms in the instant case cannot be replaced
however, a compensation in this regard is
correct.
22. It is important to note that the vehicle
had run about 35000 km in the first year
and as per the admission of the learned
counsel for the respondent during
arguments, had run more than 90000 km.
Obviously, no case is made out for
replacement of the vehicle at this stage.
Had there been any serious
manufacturing defect, it would not have
been possible to run the vehicle for so
many kilometers. ... Accordingly, we do
not find any justification for replacement of
vehicle or reimbursement of the whole cost
of the vehicle which has already run for
more than 90000kms. On the other hand,
we are of the considered view that the
complainant has suffered lot of
inconvenience and misery due to improper
functioning of the vehicle right from the
initial days of purchase... If this has
happened, the purchaser is definitely liable
to receive some compensation for
inconvenience and mental agony faced by
 him due to supply of a vehicle having some
defects. ...

7. Because, this Hon’ble Court in the case of Sushila

Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad and Ors.
dated 7th May, 2010 has held that,

“Merely because the accessory was not supplied

in the beginning and that the vehicle suffered from
some minor defects, which, however, were
attended to by the opposite party, the State
Commission has completely erred in holding that
the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect
warranting its replacement. In the case of Surendra
Kumar Jain Vs. R.C. Bhargava & Ors. [III (2006)
CPJ 382 (NC)], even when the complainant had
filed a report of one O.P. Singh stating that the
radiator was found to be leaking from the bottom
tank and had been replaced, this Commission had
taken the view that as many as 11 visits to the
workshop notwithstanding minor defects cannot
be said to be manufacturing defect.”

7. Because the ulterior motive of the Appellant is to

usurp economic benefits and unfair advantage
from the Respondent No. 1 despite showcasing
high and efficient service althroughout the period
on their part.
III. In view of the submissions made in the Paragraphs
I, II and III above it is most respectfully prayed that
this Hon'ble Commission may graciously be pleased
to;
a. Dismiss the Revision Petition with costs on the
Appellant.
b. Uphold the order made by the Hon’ble State
Commission dated 09.01.2023.

c. Pass any other and further relief which this

Hon'ble Commission thinks fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case in
favour of the Complainants and against the
Opposite Party.

Filed by:

Dated: