December 16, 2025 : The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a car buyer who alleged that a used or demo vehicle had been fraudulently sold to him, holding that a claim of manufacturing defect cannot be sustained without expert evidence. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Consumer Commission, finding no deficiency in service on the part of either the dealer or the manufacturer.
The appeal was decided by a Bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and Member Ms. Bimla Kumari.
The complainant, Manoj Loharia, had purchased an SX4 ZXi car manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Limited for ₹8,10,525 in April 2011 from T.R. Sawhney Motors Private Limited. He was informed at the time of purchase that the vehicle was manufactured in 2010 and was assured that this would not affect after-sales service.
Issues arose when, during the first free service at another authorised service centre, the complainant was allegedly informed that service records showed an earlier sale date of May 31, 2010. Despite this, the vehicle was serviced, and the complainant later availed the second and third free services after covering over 7,400 kilometres.
Alleging that a used or demo vehicle had been sold to him and that the car suffered from manufacturing defects, including issues with the steering wheel, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central). The District Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that no deficiency in service had been established.
In appeal, the complainant argued that the District Commission had failed to appreciate that the vehicle was previously owned and that the complaint was wrongly treated as barred by limitation. He also claimed that the cause of action was continuing.
Rejecting these contentions, the State Commission noted that the Registration Certificate clearly recorded the complainant as the first registered owner. It also observed that he was aware at the time of purchase that the car was a 2010-manufactured model and had used it extensively while availing three free services without raising any contemporaneous grievance regarding performance or quality.
On the allegation of manufacturing defect, the Commission reiterated that expert evidence is mandatory to establish such a claim. The Bench held that the complainant neither sought appointment of an expert nor produced any expert report to show that the replacement of the steering wheel was due to a manufacturing defect. Mere replacement of a part under warranty, the Commission said, does not by itself prove a manufacturing defect.
Finding no infirmity in the District Commission’s reasoning, the State Commission declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Case Reference : Coram: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member)
Cause Title: Manoj Loharia v. T.R. Sawhney Motors & Ors.
Case No.: FA No. 143 of 2019
