A bus bought for Rs 16 lakh began overheating within about two months, and its engine seized. The Belagavi Consumer Commission has now ordered Force Motors and its dealer to replace the bus or else refund Rs 15 lakh with interest.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Belagavi: Partly allowing the complaint of a driver whose newly bought Force Motors Citiline bus developed engine overheating, coolant leakage and engine seizure within about two months, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Belagavi has directed the manufacturer and the dealer, jointly and severally, to replace the vehicle with a new one of the same brand or, failing that, refund Rs 15 lakh with 6 per cent annual interest from the date of purchase [Mugundappa v. Arihant Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Another].
President Sanjeev V. Kulkarni and Member Smt. S.K. Kadrollimath formed the Commission. They held that the vehicle suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect and that the opposite parties were liable for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
What the Commission ordered
Force Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Arihant Motors Pvt. Ltd., jointly and severally, were directed to:
- replace the bus with a new vehicle of the same brand;
- failing replacement, refund Rs 15 lakh with 6 per cent annual interest from the date of purchase;
- pay Rs 10,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs; and
- comply with the order within 45 days.
A new bus, two months, 9,000 km
Mugundappa, a driver by profession from Belagavi, bought a Force Motors Citiline STD Bus for Rs 16 lakh from the dealer, Arihant Motors Pvt. Ltd. The vehicle came with a two-year manufacturer’s warranty.
As per the complaint, the bus developed engine overheating, coolant leakage and engine seizure within roughly two months and about 9,000 km of use. A visit to an authorised service centre on May 27, 2024 did not end the trouble, and the overheating and engine issues returned. On June 10, 2024, the bus went back to the service centre.
ALSO READ: Consumer Commission Orders Honda to Replace Motorcycle Over Manufacturing Defect
The defence, and why it failed
Force Motors Pvt. Ltd. and the dealer denied any manufacturing defect. Their case was that the complainant had not maintained adequate coolant levels and had ignored dashboard warnings. The manufacturer also disputed that he was a “consumer”, arguing that the bus was used for a commercial purpose, while he maintained that he had bought and run the vehicle himself to earn his livelihood.
The Commission weighed the oral and documentary evidence, including expert evidence, and found an inherent manufacturing defect in the bus. The objection on the complainant’s status was rejected: because he used the vehicle to earn his livelihood, he was a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Why the order matters
The order applies a familiar consumer-law principle: where a vehicle shows an inherent defect soon after purchase and repeated visits to the service centre do not cure it, the buyer is entitled to a replacement or a refund, and the manufacturer and the dealer answer together for the deficiency.
It also shows that a vehicle bought and driven by the owner to earn a livelihood does not take him outside the definition of a “consumer”, so the commercial-purpose objection did not defeat the complaint on these facts.
Case Title: Mugundappa v. Arihant Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Another [C.C. No. 378/2024]
Bench: President Sanjeev V. Kulkarni and Member Smt. S.K. Kadrollimath, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi