Rusting Mahindra Bolero: Consumer Court Asks Dealer To Pay Customer Rs. 55,000, Replace Defective Parts
In a recent case heard by the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a consumer complaint against Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. And Sireesh Auto (Pvt) Ltd. Regarding a Mahindra Bolero highlighted the importance of prompt service and clear communication between car manufacturers and dealerships.
The complainant, Mr. J. Somnath, alleged that his Mahindra Bolero Power+ ZLX, purchased from Sireesh Auto in 2021, developed excessive rust and experienced repeated breakdowns. He filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, citing these issues as “deficiency in service.”
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Contested the claim, arguing that the rusting was a natural consequence of wear and tear and not a manufacturing defect. While acknowledging the inconvenience caused to Mr. Somnath, they emphasized their willingness to address the problem, as evidenced by their offer to replace the rusted parts, initially declined by the complainant.
Court Fines Kia Motors 70,000 For Rusting Seltos
The legal crux of the case centered on establishing the cause of the rusting. “In the absence of expert opinion, it cannot be said that the complainant has proved the alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle,” stated Commission President Sri B. Narayanappa. This statement underscores the significance of expert testimony in solidifying claims of manufacturing defects.
Despite the lack of conclusive evidence on the origin of the rusting, the Commission acknowledged the “delay in rectifying the defects in the vehicle by the Ops [opposite parties], which itself is nothing but the deficiency in service on their part.” This delay, coupled with the inconvenience caused to Mr. Somnath due to the breakdowns, influenced the Commission’s decision.
Ultimately, the Commission delivered a balanced verdict, aiming to address both parties’ concerns. They directed Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. And Sireesh Auto (Pvt) Ltd. To replace the defective or rusted parts within two months, attesting to the dealership’s responsibility to facilitate repairs and service. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Mr. Somnath ₹50,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
Court Orders Volkswagen To Pay Rs. 2 Lakh For Scratched Taigun
This case serves as a reminder for both consumers and car manufacturers. Consumers should document any vehicle issues promptly and consider seeking expert opinions to strengthen their claims if necessary.
Car manufacturers, on the other hand, are obligated to address customer concerns promptly and effectively to minimize inconvenience and avoid legal disputes. Additionally, dealerships play a crucial role in facilitating communication and ensuring timely service to uphold consumer rights.
The Mahindra Bolero Power+ is no longer built, and has been replaced by the Bolero Neo, which is essentially the TUV300 with different badging.
The Bolero Power+ used a 1.5 liter, twin turbo diesel engine, paired to a five speed manual gearbox. The MUV featured the familiar body style that made its debut with the Armada back in the 90s. Over the years, Mahindra gave the Bolero multiple refreshes, and the Power+ model was the last hurrah of this much-loved MUV.
The post Rusting Mahindra Bolero: Consumer Court Asks Dealer To Pay Customer Rs. 55,000, Replace Defective Parts first appeared on Cartoq.
In a recent case heard by the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a consumer complaint against Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. And Sireesh Auto (Pvt) Ltd. Regarding a Mahindra Bolero highlighted the importance of prompt service and clear communication between car manufacturers and dealerships.
The complainant, Mr. J. Somnath, alleged that his Mahindra Bolero Power+ ZLX, purchased from Sireesh Auto in 2021, developed excessive rust and experienced repeated breakdowns. He filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, citing these issues as “deficiency in service.”
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Contested the claim, arguing that the rusting was a natural consequence of wear and tear and not a manufacturing defect. While acknowledging the inconvenience caused to Mr. Somnath, they emphasized their willingness to address the problem, as evidenced by their offer to replace the rusted parts, initially declined by the complainant.
Court Fines Kia Motors 70,000 For Rusting Seltos
The legal crux of the case centered on establishing the cause of the rusting. “In the absence of expert opinion, it cannot be said that the complainant has proved the alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle,” stated Commission President Sri B. Narayanappa. This statement underscores the significance of expert testimony in solidifying claims of manufacturing defects.
Despite the lack of conclusive evidence on the origin of the rusting, the Commission acknowledged the “delay in rectifying the defects in the vehicle by the Ops [opposite parties], which itself is nothing but the deficiency in service on their part.” This delay, coupled with the inconvenience caused to Mr. Somnath due to the breakdowns, influenced the Commission’s decision.
Ultimately, the Commission delivered a balanced verdict, aiming to address both parties’ concerns. They directed Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. And Sireesh Auto (Pvt) Ltd. To replace the defective or rusted parts within two months, attesting to the dealership’s responsibility to facilitate repairs and service. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Mr. Somnath ₹50,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
Court Orders Volkswagen To Pay Rs. 2 Lakh For Scratched Taigun
This case serves as a reminder for both consumers and car manufacturers. Consumers should document any vehicle issues promptly and consider seeking expert opinions to strengthen their claims if necessary.
Car manufacturers, on the other hand, are obligated to address customer concerns promptly and effectively to minimize inconvenience and avoid legal disputes. Additionally, dealerships play a crucial role in facilitating communication and ensuring timely service to uphold consumer rights.
The Mahindra Bolero Power+ is no longer built, and has been replaced by the Bolero Neo, which is essentially the TUV300 with different badging.
The Bolero Power+ used a 1.5 liter, twin turbo diesel engine, paired to a five speed manual gearbox. The MUV featured the familiar body style that made its debut with the Armada back in the 90s. Over the years, Mahindra gave the Bolero multiple refreshes, and the Power+ model was the last hurrah of this much-loved MUV.
The post Rusting Mahindra Bolero: Consumer Court Asks Dealer To Pay Customer Rs. 55,000, Replace Defective Parts first appeared on Cartoq.
Denial of responsibility! Techno Blender is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – [email protected]. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.