Consumer Court Sends Back Mahindra XUV Case for Fresh Consideration.


25 July 2025 Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

In a consumer dispute of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v/s Piyush Bangad & Others concerning a Mahindra XUV 500, a national commission has set aside a previous order by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The original complaint, filed by the vehicle owner, alleged that his SUV had a manufacturing defect, which was evidenced by the failure of the airbags to deploy during an accident and a persistent suspension problem that required 13 service visits.

The District Forum initially found that the non-deployment of the airbags was not a manufacturing defect, as the complainant had not provided an expert report. However, it concluded there was a manufacturing defect based on the recurring suspension issues. As a result, the District Forum ordered the manufacturer and dealer to replace the vehicle and pay compensation.


 

 

Both the manufacturer, Mahindra & Mahindra, and the dealer, Bhilwara Agro Auto Services, appealed the decision. They argued that the vehicle had been driven for over 60,000 km before the accident and that the suspension issues were resolved to the complainant's satisfaction. They also emphasized that without an expert opinion, a manufacturing defect could not be proven. The State Commission, in a very brief order, upheld the District Forum's decision without providing a detailed analysis or reasons for its conclusion.

The national commission, in its revisionary powers, found this lack of reasoning to be a "material irregularity." Citing a Supreme Court ruling (Hyundai Motor India Limited v. Shailendra Bhatnagar), the commission noted that in cases of severe frontal damage, the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) might apply, making an expert report unnecessary for the airbag issue. However, the State Commission's order did not discuss this or other crucial points, such as the vehicle's service history and the parties' contentions.

Consequently, the national commission has set aside the State Commission's order and directed it to re-hear the appeals. The State Commission is instructed to provide a reasoned judgment based on the evidence, without being influenced by any prior observations, and to do so within three months.