In recent years, complaints alleging manufacturing defects in automobiles and consumer goods have become increasingly common before Consumer Commissions across India. However, such allegations—while serious in nature—require more than mere assertion. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, lays down specific legal principles regarding the burden of proof and evidentiary requirements in such cases. This article examines the statutory obligation of the complainant to substantiate claims of manufacturing defects through expert evidence, as well as the corresponding duty of the Consumer Commission to conduct a proper examination of the product in question. By analyzing the relevant provisions of the Act and key judicial precedents, the article aims to clarify the legal framework that governs such disputes.
Compliance with Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in Manufacturing Defect Claims
In consumer complaints involving alleged manufacturing defects—particularly in motor vehicles—it is essential for the complainant to comply with the procedure laid down under Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This provision mandates that if the defect cannot be determined without proper analysis or testing, the Commission must obtain a sealed and authenticated sample of the product and refer it to a recognized laboratory for expert testing.
The complainant, therefore, has a clear obligation to either produce an expert report along with the complaint or request the Commission to initiate testing under Section 38(2)(c). Allegations without technical evidence are insufficient in such matters, especially where the nature of the defect is complex and requires expert assessment.
The District Consumer Commission also has a statutory responsibility to ensure compliance with this procedure. Even if the complainant does not request testing, the Commission must act suo motu where the alleged defect requires expert evaluation. Failure to follow this process undermines both the fairness and legality of the adjudication and often results in dismissal of the complaint due to lack of evidence.
Findings of the National and State Consumer Commissions
Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and State Commissions had observed in their many Judgments that the burden of proving manufacturing defects in a vehicle lies on the complainant, which can be discharged only by producing an expert report prepared by a government-approved authority. The burden of proving that the there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle can not be shifted on the manufacturing company based on a simple allegation of the complainant.
The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in its final order dated 31st May 2024 passed in Revision Petition Nos. 3149 & 3150 of 2017, Randhir Singh vs. M/s. Maharaja Auto Wheels (P) Ltd. & Anr., held that the burden of proving the manufacturing defect is on the complainant. Hon’ble National Commission duly observed the following:
Upon careful examination of the material on record and the orders of both the fora, it’s apparent that no expert opinion from an authorized laboratory or recognized Govt authority was procured or presented by the Complainant to substantiate manufacturing defect claim. Entitlement to get refund of purchase price of car is feasible only if defects are established to be manufacturing defects with significant impact on the functioning of the vehicle. In this respect, the burden is on Complainant to prove that the defects present in the car are manufacturing defects, through an expert opinion.
The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in its recent and significant judgment dated 20th September 2024 in First Appeal No. 10 of 2013 – Mohd. Hyder Khan vs Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., reaffirmed the well-settled legal position that in complaints alleging manufacturing defects in vehicles, the burden of proof squarely lies on the complainant to substantiate such allegations through credible expert opinion or technical report. In the said case, the appellant/complainant had alleged that the vehicle manufactured and sold by the respondent company suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. However, during the proceedings, the appellant failed to produce any expert report, technical inspection, or third-party certification that could objectively establish the existence of any such defect.
The Commission observed that mere allegations, howsoever strongly worded, are insufficient to prove a manufacturing defect in the absence of supporting technical evidence. The absence of an expert’s opinion rendered the complaint unsubstantiated in the eyes of law. Consequently, the Hon’ble Commission dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish the alleged defect in the vehicle.
Conclusion:
This article delivers a vital message: in consumer complaints alleging manufacturing defects—especially involving vehicles—adherence to the procedural framework under Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is indispensable. Anyone initiating a defect claim must ensure that credible expert evidence accompanies the complaint or that testing is requested through the Commission whenever technical issues are involved. Similarly, those responding to such claims should scrutinize any complaints that rest solely on allegations without proper evidentiary support, as it has been firmly established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant. Judicial decisions consistently affirm that defect claims without technical substantiation will not succeed.