Mahindra denies repair under warranty, Bolero owner wins Rs 34,000 compensation

The order noted that there is no proof that a minor delay in service caused a structural mechanical failure of the gear teeth. Therefore, refusing to repair a covered gear defect within the subsistence of the warranty period and extracting parts and labour charges amounts to an unfair trade practice and a severe deficiency in service by both the dealer and the manufacturer.

The complainant’s case was that he purchased a Bolero Pickup, manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra, from an authorised dealer and at the time of purchase, a standard manufacturer’s warranty was provided for a period of three years or 1 lakh kilometres, whichever occurred earlier.

The complainant claimed that he uses the vehicle exclusively to earn his livelihood, and during the subsistence of the warranty period, on December 21, 2022, at around 9 pm, the vehicle developed a sudden mechanical fault in its gear system and came to a complete halt.

Since the complainant had purchased a one-year Roadside Assistance (RSA) policy through the opposite parties (Mahindra and the dealer), effective from September 30, 2022, by paying a premium of Rs 2,299, he contacted the opposite parties on December 22, 2022, at around 10 am, detailing the location of the vehicle and requesting towing assistance to transport it to the workshop at Chamba.

It was alleged that the opposite parties failed to provide the breakdown assistance, forcing him to arrange a private vehicle on December 23, 2022, to tow the vehicle to the workshop of the authorised dealer at a personal expense of Rs 3,500. He alleged that thereafter, despite the vehicle being well within the warranty period, the opposite parties refused to carry out repairs under warranty and arbitrarily raised a bill of Rs 13,567 for parts and labour, which the complainant had to pay under protest.

Contending that the failure to provide roadside assistance and the wrongful collection of repair charges for a covered defect during the warranty period amounts to a gross deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, the complainant moved the consumer commission.

No breakdown call received: Dealer

Appearing for the authorised dealer, advocate Ishan Sharma admitted the purchase of the vehicle and the existence of the RSA policy, but stated that the policy was merely routed through them and managed by a separate service provider.

It was contended that the complainant was contractually obligated to dial the dedicated 24×7 toll-free helpline number (1800-419-0804) to summon assistance, which he failed to do, and no breakdown call was ever received by the answering dealer.

It was further argued that upon technical inspection by the foreman and service manager in the presence of the complainant’s driver, it was discovered that the counter shaft first gear assembly had been badly broken due to severe driver abuse, as the driver continuously drove the vehicle despite knowing that a mechanical defect had arisen.

History of repairs: Mahindra

Representing Mahindra & Mahindra, advocate Manav Mahajan argued that the complainant is not a “consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, because the vehicle was actively being deployed for commercial gainful activities, as evidenced by the high operational mileage of 46,720 km clocked in a short span of time.

He stated that the vehicle’s service history indicates a history of running repairs where covered parts were promptly replaced under warranty to the complete satisfaction of the customer.

Regarding the RSA policy, it was submitted that the service guidelines strictly require the owner or a representative to remain with the breakdown vehicle; whereas in this instance, when the emergency response team arrived at the designated site, the vehicle and the driver had already left the spot.

Court’s findings

• It is undisputed that the vehicle broke down in a remote location near Sagloga village in Chamba district on December 21, 2022.
• The opposite party argued that its emergency response team reached the spot, but the vehicle and driver had already abandoned the site, violating RSA guidelines.
• However, a minute perusal of the record reveals a total absence of evidence on the part of the opposite party.
• No record was produced indicating when the complainant’s call was logged, which towing agency or recovery vehicle was assigned the task, what the registration number of the recovery vehicle was, or the contact details of the responding driver.
• Having failed to provide a single shred of log data, their defence is deemed a baseline assertion without legs.

Final order

The court directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally refund the principal sum of Rs 19,373 to the complainant, which comprises the unauthorised repair bill of Rs 13,575, the out-of-pocket private towing charges of Rs 3,500, and the unserviced RSA premium of Rs 2,298.

Further, the opposite parties were jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs 7,500 as compensation to the complainant for the severe mental agony, harassment, and loss of livelihood suffered by being left stranded without breakdown services, along with an additional Rs 7,500 towards litigation expenses incurred in pursuing this action.

Significance of ruling

This judgment is significant because it protects self-employed individuals as consumers. It shifts the burden of proof for services like RSA to providers. Additionally, it prevents manufacturers from arbitrarily denying warranties based on minor service delays or vague claims of “driver abuse” without expert evidence.

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Himachal Pradesh: 0177-2620797) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.