Advertised vs. Actual Mileage: Consumer Complaint Fails Expert Test.


25 November 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

In Tapas Kanti Sengupta Vs Tata Motors Ltd. & Others, a consumer complaint seeking a refund and compensation for a Tata Nano's unsatisfactory mileage has been dismissed by both the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata-I, and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. The complainant, who purchased the car in 2012, alleged that the vehicle's mileage fell far short of the advertised 25 km/l, claiming it initially yielded 16.33 km/l and later dropped to 10.33 km/l.

The crux of the complainant's argument rested on the vehicle's performance test conducted by the authorized dealer, which, according to him, substantiated the mileage discrepancy and pointed to a manufacturing defect. He also cited email correspondence with the manufacturer (OP-1 & 2) regarding the mileage issue, which predated an accident involving the car.


 

 

However, both consumer forums dismissed the complaint, primarily citing the complainant's failure to provide an expert report substantiating the alleged manufacturing defect. The District Forum, in its order dated 22.08.2017, emphasized that while the purchase and warranty were acknowledged, the complainant did not avail of the scheduled free services and failed to produce cogent evidence of a manufacturing defect. The State Commission, in its order dated 08.05.2019, further highlighted the various factors affecting mileage, such as road conditions and driving efficiency, and stressed the importance of expert certification for manufacturing defect allegations.

The manufacturer, OP-1 & 2, refuted the claims, stating that their vehicles undergo rigorous quality checks and are certified by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). They also argued that the complainant had not adhered to the vehicle's maintenance schedule and had suppressed the fact that the car had been involved in an accident.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in a recent revision petition filed by the complainant, upheld the orders of the lower forums. The NCDRC, citing Supreme Court precedents, reiterated the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It emphasized that it can only intervene when a State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity.

The NCDRC observed that the lower forums' findings were based on evidence and arguments presented, and there was no illegality or jurisdictional error warranting intervention. It reiterated that concurrent findings of facts are generally not interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The NCDRC also noted that the complainant failed to establish a manufacturing defect under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.

This case highlights the importance of expert evidence in consumer disputes involving technical issues like manufacturing defects. While dealer test reports and correspondence can provide valuable insights, consumer forums often require expert opinions to establish a direct link between the alleged defect and the manufacturer's liability. The case also underscores the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing the finality of concurrent findings by lower forums in many cases.


Section 21, Consumer Protection Act - 1986  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986