IN TTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAARH 121 CWWP No.36667 of 2025 Datte of decision: 29.05.2026 MAHENDDRA SINGH YADAV …. Appellant Verrsus M/S STERRLING MOTOR COMPANY AND OTHERS …. Respondents CORAM:: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARCHANA PURI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present : Ms. Bhumika, Advocate for Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Addvocate for the petitioner. **** RAMESHH KUMARI, J. 1. The preseent petition has been filed uunder Articles 226/227 of thee Constitutioon of India for issuance of wriit in the nature of certiorari forr quashing the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-4), orders datedd 23.01.20177 (Annexure P-5) and 08.08.20025 (Annexure P-6) passed byy District CConsumer Forum, Gurugram, the State Consumer Disputess Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkuula and the National Consumerr Commissi on, New Delhi respectively annd for issuance of writ in thee nature of mandamus directing respondennt No.1 to allow his complaintt dated 23.008.2012 (Annexure P-1) to rep lace XUV with new one or too return the charged value of the vehicle wwith interest @ 18% per annumm from 14.004.2012 till the actual date of ppayment along with penalty off Rs.5,00,0000/-. JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.36667 of 2025 -2-

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 14.04.2012, he purchased aa Mahindra--500-XUV, W-8 model, whitte colour bearing registrationn No.HR-266-BR-8134 from respondent No.1- M/S Sterling Motorss Company, Gurugram for sale consideeration of an amount of Rs.. 14,11,550//-. The said vehicle was delive red to him on 16.04.2012. Thee vehicle waas suffering from number of defeects i.e. 1. Noise in the engine; 2. Dooor lock problem on front left and right side and noise thereof; 3. Dooors also open automatically whilee the vehicle is running; 4. Enggine noise in the cabin; 5. Noise in the gear box; 6. Noise in the chassis and loud noise iin left side front wheel. 3. These deffects were reported by the petittioner to respondent No.1. Thee petitioner had narrow escape when the l eft side window of the vehiclee opened aautomatically on 18.04.2012. The vehicle was hit by aa motorcycliist from behind thereby causinng damage to the rear portion off the vehiclee. The petitioner paid Rs. 54,7100/- for repair of the vehicle. Thee matter wass again reported to respondent NNo.1 but respondent No.1 failedd to correct the said defect. The said act onn the part of respondent No.1 iss deficiencyy in the service. The vehiclee was taken to workshop off respondennt No.1 but the defects remaine d unrectified. Legal notice wass sent by thee petitioner to respondent No.1 bbut no action was taken.

4. Learned ccounsel for the petitioner conttended that the petitioner filedd complaint dated under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protectionn Act, 19866 in District Consumer Forumm, Gurugram dated 23.08.20122 JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.36667 of 2025 -3- (Annexuree P-1). Respondent No.1 in its written reply, denied thee averments . The District Consumer Forumm, Gurugram erred in dismissingg the complaaint vide order dated 18.03.20144 (Annexure P-4) by holding thatt there is nno manufacturing defects in thhe vehicle in dispute and thatt respondennt No.1 promptly and efficiently rrectified the problem of noise inn engine byy its replacement. The State Consumer Disputes Redressall Commissi on Haryana, Panchkula vide its order dated 23.01.2017 and thee National CConsumer Disputes Redressal CCommission, New Delhi vide itss order dateed 08.08.2025, wrongly and errroneously upheld the order off District Consumer Forum, Gurugram. Hee prayed that his vehicle needss replaceme nt along with compensation to hhim for deficiency in the servicee on the partt of respondent No.1. 5. With the aable assistance of the learned couunsel for the petitioner, we havee gone throuugh the record.

6. The Distriict Consumer Forum, Gurugramm in the order dated 18.03.20144 (Annexuree P-4) observed that the complainnant/petitioner failed to producee any docummentary evidence to support that the vehicle was havingg manufactuuring defects. The vehicle in disspute was with respondent No.1 for repair after accident, sitting at 2933KMM and respondent No.1 chargedd Rs.1350/- vide bill dated 29.06.2012, thouugh later on, running repair wass made on 30.06.2012 at 2998 KM by rrespondent No.1 for a sum off Rs.188/- aas per Vehicle History Sheet. Thhe engine was replaced and afterr replaceme nt of engine, Satisfaction Notte dated 17.12.2012 was dulyy signed byy the petitioner. The District Consumer Forum, Gurugramm observed tthat the complainant failed to leaad any cogent evidence to provee JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.36667 of 2025 -4- any manuufacturing defect in the vehiccle or deficiency in providingg services too him. The engine of the vehiclle in question had already beenn replaced aand body of vehicle was damagedd in two accidents caused by thee petitioner jjust after purchase of vehicle, fifirst within two days and secondd within 2 ½½ months of its purchase. For the purpose of replacement off vehicle, ttechnical expert report is reqquired to be proved by thee complainaant/petitioner, which he failed to prove.

7. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal CCommission Haryana, Panchkulaa and the National Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, New Delhii failed to find any illegality or irregul arity in the order of Districtt Consumerr Forum, Gurugram. There are cconcurrent findings of abovesaidd three forumms that there are no manufacturring defects when the petitionerr purchased the vehicle. 8. No expertt opinion regarding any allegeed manufacturing defect in thee vehicle haad been submitted before any of the forums. The petitionerr himself exxpressed the satisfaction regardinng the repair and replacement off engine by issuing ‘Satisfaction Note’ dateed 17.12.2012. The decisions off District CConsumer Forum, Gurugram, the State Consumer Disputess Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkuula and the National Consumerr Disputes RRedressal Commission, New Deelhi are based on appreciation off facts and llaw in its rightful perspective. NNo interference in the impugnedd orders dat ed 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-5) aand 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-6)) passed byy District Consumer Forum, GGurugram, the State Consumerr Disputes RRedressal Commission Haryanaa, Panchkula and the Nationall Consumerr Commission, New Delhi respecctively, is required. JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.36667 of 2025 -5- 9. In view off the above discussion, the petitioon is dismissed. 10. Pending appplication, if any, also stands dissposed of.

(ARCHANNA PURI) (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDDGE JUDGE 29.05.20266 Jyoti-IV Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

IN TTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAARH 121 CWWP No.36667 of 2025 Datte of decision: 29.05.2026 MAHENDDRA SINGH YADAV …. Appellant Verrsus M/S STERRLING MOTOR COMPANY AND OTHERS …. Respondents CORAM:: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARCHANA PURI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present : Ms. Bhumika, Advocate for Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Addvocate for the petitioner. **** RAMESHH KUMARI, J. 1. The preseent petition has been filed uunder Articles 226/227 of thee Constitutioon of India for issuance of wriit in the nature of certiorari forr quashing the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-4), orders datedd 23.01.20177 (Annexure P-5) and 08.08.20025 (Annexure P-6) passed byy District CConsumer Forum, Gurugram, the State Consumer Disputess Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkuula and the National Consumerr Commissi on, New Delhi respectively annd for issuance of writ in thee nature of mandamus directing respondennt No.1 to allow his complaintt dated 23.008.2012 (Annexure P-1) to rep lace XUV with new one or too return the charged value of the vehicle wwith interest @ 18% per annumm from 14.004.2012 till the actual date of ppayment along with penalty off Rs.5,00,0000/-. JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.36667 of 2025 -2-

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 14.04.2012, he purchased aa Mahindra--500-XUV, W-8 model, whitte colour bearing registrationn No.HR-266-BR-8134 from respondent No.1- M/S Sterling Motorss Company, Gurugram for sale consideeration of an amount of Rs.. 14,11,550//-. The said vehicle was delive red to him on 16.04.2012. Thee vehicle waas suffering from number of defeects i.e. 1. Noise in the engine; 2. Dooor lock problem on front left and right side and noise thereof; 3. Dooors also open automatically whilee the vehicle is running; 4. Enggine noise in the cabin; 5. Noise in the gear box; 6. Noise in the chassis and loud noise iin left side front wheel. 3. These deffects were reported by the petittioner to respondent No.1. Thee petitioner had narrow escape when the l eft side window of the vehiclee opened aautomatically on 18.04.2012. The vehicle was hit by aa motorcycliist from behind thereby causinng damage to the rear portion off the vehiclee. The petitioner paid Rs. 54,7100/- for repair of the vehicle. Thee matter wass again reported to respondent NNo.1 but respondent No.1 failedd to correct the said defect. The said act onn the part of respondent No.1 iss deficiencyy in the service. The vehiclee was taken to workshop off respondennt No.1 but the defects remaine d unrectified. Legal notice wass sent by thee petitioner to respondent No.1 bbut no action was taken.

4. Learned ccounsel for the petitioner conttended that the petitioner filedd complaint dated under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protectionn Act, 19866 in District Consumer Forumm, Gurugram dated 23.08.20122 JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.36667 of 2025 -3- (Annexuree P-1). Respondent No.1 in its written reply, denied thee averments . The District Consumer Forumm, Gurugram erred in dismissingg the complaaint vide order dated 18.03.20144 (Annexure P-4) by holding thatt there is nno manufacturing defects in thhe vehicle in dispute and thatt respondennt No.1 promptly and efficiently rrectified the problem of noise inn engine byy its replacement. The State Consumer Disputes Redressall Commissi on Haryana, Panchkula vide its order dated 23.01.2017 and thee National CConsumer Disputes Redressal CCommission, New Delhi vide itss order dateed 08.08.2025, wrongly and errroneously upheld the order off District Consumer Forum, Gurugram. Hee prayed that his vehicle needss replaceme nt along with compensation to hhim for deficiency in the servicee on the partt of respondent No.1. 5. With the aable assistance of the learned couunsel for the petitioner, we havee gone throuugh the record.

6. The Distriict Consumer Forum, Gurugramm in the order dated 18.03.20144 (Annexuree P-4) observed that the complainnant/petitioner failed to producee any docummentary evidence to support that the vehicle was havingg manufactuuring defects. The vehicle in disspute was with respondent No.1 for repair after accident, sitting at 2933KMM and respondent No.1 chargedd Rs.1350/- vide bill dated 29.06.2012, thouugh later on, running repair wass made on 30.06.2012 at 2998 KM by rrespondent No.1 for a sum off Rs.188/- aas per Vehicle History Sheet. Thhe engine was replaced and afterr replaceme nt of engine, Satisfaction Notte dated 17.12.2012 was dulyy signed byy the petitioner. The District Consumer Forum, Gurugramm observed tthat the complainant failed to leaad any cogent evidence to provee JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.36667 of 2025 -4- any manuufacturing defect in the vehiccle or deficiency in providingg services too him. The engine of the vehiclle in question had already beenn replaced aand body of vehicle was damagedd in two accidents caused by thee petitioner jjust after purchase of vehicle, fifirst within two days and secondd within 2 ½½ months of its purchase. For the purpose of replacement off vehicle, ttechnical expert report is reqquired to be proved by thee complainaant/petitioner, which he failed to prove.

7. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal CCommission Haryana, Panchkulaa and the National Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, New Delhii failed to find any illegality or irregul arity in the order of Districtt Consumerr Forum, Gurugram. There are cconcurrent findings of abovesaidd three forumms that there are no manufacturring defects when the petitionerr purchased the vehicle. 8. No expertt opinion regarding any allegeed manufacturing defect in thee vehicle haad been submitted before any of the forums. The petitionerr himself exxpressed the satisfaction regardinng the repair and replacement off engine by issuing ‘Satisfaction Note’ dateed 17.12.2012. The decisions off District CConsumer Forum, Gurugram, the State Consumer Disputess Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkuula and the National Consumerr Disputes RRedressal Commission, New Deelhi are based on appreciation off facts and llaw in its rightful perspective. NNo interference in the impugnedd orders dat ed 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-5) aand 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-6)) passed byy District Consumer Forum, GGurugram, the State Consumerr Disputes RRedressal Commission Haryanaa, Panchkula and the Nationall Consumerr Commission, New Delhi respecctively, is required. JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.36667 of 2025 -5- 9. In view off the above discussion, the petitioon is dismissed. 10. Pending appplication, if any, also stands dissposed of.

(ARCHANNA PURI) (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDDGE JUDGE 29.05.20266 Jyoti-IV Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document