Maharashtra Consumer Commission Revisits Kia Sonet Defect Case

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has set aside a Raigad district consumer commission order that had directed Kia India and its dealer to replace an allegedly defective Kia Sonet vehicle or refund over Rs 12.6 lakh to the buyer, observing that no independent expert evidence had been led to establish a manufacturing defect.

The motor company had filed an appeal against the February 26, 2024, order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raigad-Alibag, in a complaint filed by Raigad resident Sachin Gajanand Patil.

According to the case records, Patil had purchased a Kia Sonet on February 27, 2021, for Rs 12.61 lakh after availing a loan from ICICI Bank. He alleged that immediately after taking delivery of the vehicle on March 1, 2021, the car repeatedly stopped due to engine overheating while he was travelling to his village. The complainant claimed that despite inspection and repair attempts by the dealer’s engineers, the problem persisted and the vehicle remained with the dealer from March 3, 2021, onwards. Alleging a manufacturing defect, he sought replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase amount.

The manufacturer and dealer denied the allegations, contending that there was no manufacturing defect in the car. They argued that their engineers had examined the vehicle and found no defect, and further claimed that the complainant refused to take delivery of the repaired vehicle.

The district commission had earlier allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or alternatively refund Rs 12,61,958 with 12% annual interest from February 27, 2021. It had also awarded Rs 1 lakh as compensation along with litigation costs.

However, the state commission bench comprising Justice S.P. Tavade and member Vijay C. Premchandani held that the district commission erred in concluding that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect without obtaining expert evidence or laboratory testing as contemplated under Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The commission observed that overheating alone could not automatically be treated as proof of a manufacturing defect and noted that the complainant had failed to produce independent expert evidence showing that the alleged defect was incurable.

“But fact remains on record that the Complainant did not lead any expert evidence to prove that overheating is a manufacturing defect which cannot be cured. In this state of facts, we are of the opinion that the complainant be directed to lead expert evidence as per Section 13(1). Similarly, the District Commission can be directed to ask the parties to lead independent expert evidence to prove manufacturing defect,” the order reads.

Setting aside the earlier order, the state commission remanded the matter back to the District Commission, Raigad-Alibag, directing it to allow both parties to lead expert evidence and decide the complaint afresh on merits.