The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a complaint alleging deficiency of service and manufacturing defect in an electric vehicle, holding that mere assertions of reduced driving range do not establish a defect without expert evidence. The judgment reinforces the burden of proof on complainants to substantiate claims under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with technical assessments, particularly when purchasing demo vehicles on an 'as is where is' basis.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainant, Mr. Naveen Pal Singh, purchased a Mercedes-Benz EQC 400 electric vehicle (Bearing No. DL-2GD-5142) from M/s Silver Arrow Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2), the authorized dealer of M/s Mercedes Benz (Opposite Party No. 1). The vehicle was advertised to provide a driving range of 470 km on a full charge. However, the complainant alleged that the vehicle only achieved a maximum range of 313 km, constituting a manufacturing defect and deficiency of service under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Key Facts
- The complainant purchased the vehicle on 29.11.2022 for approximately Rs. 86,00,000 under an invoice issued by Opposite Party No. 2.
- The vehicle was a demo car, having been driven for 1,300 km prior to sale, as acknowledged in a Demo Acceptance Agreement dated 30.11.2022.
- The complainant was offered a discounted price of Rs. 83,00,000 compared to the showroom price of Rs. 99,50,000.
- The complainant raised grievances via email dated 06.03.2023 and a legal notice dated 06.03.2023, alleging evasive responses from the opposite parties.
- The vehicle was inspected at the service centre on 06.01.2023 and 07.01.2023, where no defects were found. The instrument cluster displayed a range of 422 km on full charge.
Procedural History
- 04.05.2023: Complaint filed before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Complaint Case No. 69/2023).
- 05.12.2025: Hearing conducted.
- 29.06.2026: Judgment delivered dismissing the complaint.
The Parties' Positions
Complainant:
- Alleged manufacturing defect and deficiency of service due to the vehicle’s failure to meet the advertised range.
- Claimed mental, physical, and financial harassment, seeking:
- Replacement of the vehicle or refund of its price.
- Compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000.
- Costs of litigation.
Opposite Party No. 1 (Mercedes Benz):
- Contended that the vehicle was sold by Opposite Party No. 2 and no manufacturing defect existed.
- Argued that the complainant failed to prove any negligence or defect under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Opposite Party No. 2 (Silver Arrow Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.):
- Submitted that the vehicle was sold as a demo car on an 'as is where is' basis, with the complainant’s full awareness of its prior usage.
- Highlighted that diagnostic tests conducted on 06.01.2023 and 07.01.2023 found no defects, and the vehicle’s range was 422 km during inspection.
- Argued that no deficiency of service was established, as the vehicle was inspected and complaints were addressed.
Relief Sought
The complainant sought:
- Replacement of the vehicle or refund of its purchase price.
- Compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for harassment.
- Costs of litigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether mere assertions of reduced driving range, without expert evidence, constitute a manufacturing defect or deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly when the vehicle was purchased as a demo car on an 'as is where is' basis.
Arguments Presented
For the Complainant
- Argued that the vehicle’s failure to meet the advertised range of 470 km constituted a manufacturing defect.
- Contended that the opposite parties shuttled the complainant between them and failed to address the grievance adequately, amounting to deficiency of service.
- Relied on the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to assert that the opposite parties were liable for the alleged defects.
For the Opposite Parties
Opposite Party No. 1:
- Submitted that the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect or negligence.
- Argued that the vehicle was sold by Opposite Party No. 2, and thus Opposite Party No. 1 had no role in the transaction.
Opposite Party No. 2:
- Contended that the vehicle was sold as a demo car with the complainant’s full knowledge of its prior usage and condition.
- Highlighted that diagnostic tests found no defects, and the vehicle’s range was 422 km during inspection.
- Argued that no deficiency of service was established, as the opposite parties addressed the complaints and conducted inspections.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission analyzed the burden of proof under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, emphasizing that mere assertions of reduced performance do not suffice to establish a manufacturing defect. The judgment relied on a catena of precedents to underscore the necessity of expert evidence in proving such claims:
"The onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect was on complainant/respondent No.1. We agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant/respondent No. 1 failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect by producing any cogent evidence. Complainant failed to produce expert evidence as provided under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
The Commission cited several judgments, including:
- Classic Automobiles v. Lila Nand Mishra (I [2010] CPJ 235 NC): Held that expert evidence is a condition precedent for establishing a manufacturing defect.
- EID Parry v. Baby Benjamin-I (1992 CPJ 279), Tata Motors v. Sunil Bhasin (III [2008] CPJ 111), Chandreshwar v. Telco-I (2007 CPJ 2), Diamond Cement v. Rai Prexim India Pvt. Ltd. (I [2003] CPJ 1), and Lovely v. Harmesh Lal (I [2007] CPJ 312): Reinforced the requirement of expert opinion to prove manufacturing defects.
The Commission observed that electric vehicle range is influenced by multiple factors, including driving style, road conditions, traffic, terrain, weather, auxiliary features, and charging patterns. In the absence of expert evidence demonstrating an inherent defect, no adverse inference could be drawn against the opposite parties.
Regarding deficiency of service, the Commission noted:
"In the absence of any material on record demonstrating that the Opposite Parties failed to attend to the grievances of the Complainant or refused to inspect and examine the vehicle despite complaints being raised, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on their part."
The Commission held that mere dissatisfaction with the vehicle’s performance, without establishing neglect, omission, or shortcoming in the services rendered, does not constitute deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Verdict
The Commission dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs. The key holdings were:
- The complainant failed to establish a manufacturing defect due to the absence of expert evidence.
- The vehicle was purchased as a demo car on an 'as is where is' basis, with the complainant’s full awareness of its prior usage and condition.
- The opposite parties conducted inspections and addressed the complaints, and thus no deficiency of service was proven.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Burden of Proof Lies on the Complainant
- Complainants alleging manufacturing defects must produce expert evidence (e.g., technical assessments, laboratory analyses, or independent opinions) to substantiate their claims.
- Mere assertions of reduced performance (e.g., driving range) are insufficient without cogent technical proof.
Demo Vehicles and 'As Is Where Is' Sales
- Purchasers of demo vehicles or vehicles sold on an 'as is where is' basis assume the risk of prior usage and cannot later claim manufacturing defects without expert evidence.
- Discounted prices reflect the acknowledged condition of the vehicle, and purchasers are deemed to have accepted the terms of sale.
Deficiency of Service Requires Proof of Neglect
- Deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 requires proof of neglect, omission, or shortcoming in the services rendered.
- Mere dissatisfaction with the product’s performance, without evidence of failure to address complaints, does not constitute deficiency of service.
- Opposite parties must be given an opportunity to inspect and rectify alleged defects before liability can be imposed.
