IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 121 MAHENDRA SINGH YADAV M/S STERLING MOTOR COMPANY AND OTHERS CORAM: Present : RAMESH KUMARI 1. The present petition has been filed under Articles Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P 23.01.2017 (Annexure P District Consumer Forum, Gurugram Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula Commission, New Delhi nature of mandamus directing respondent dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure return the charged value of the vehicle with interest @ 18% per annum from 14.04.2012 till the actual date of payment along with penalty of Rs.5,00,000/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. Date of decision: MAHENDRA SINGH YADAV Versus M/S STERLING MOTOR COMPANY AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE Ms. Bhumika, Advocate for Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAMESH KUMARI, J. The present petition has been filed under Articles Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-5) and 08.08.2025 (Annexure P District Consumer Forum, Gurugram, Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula Commission, New Delhi respectively and for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent .08.2012 (Annexure P-1) to replace XUV with new one or to return the charged value of the vehicle with interest @ 18% per annum from 14.04.2012 till the actual date of payment along with penalty of Rs.5,00,000/-. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.36667 of 2025 Date of decision: 29.05.2026 …. Appellant Versus M/S STERLING MOTOR COMPANY AND OTHERS …. Respondents ARCHANA PURI JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI , Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-4), orders dated 5) and 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula and the National Consumer and for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to allow his complaint to replace XUV with new one or to return the charged value of the vehicle with interest @ 18% per annum from 14.04.2012 till the actual date of payment along with penalty of s 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for , orders dated passed by Consumer Disputes the National Consumer and for issuance of writ in the omplaint to replace XUV with new one or to return the charged value of the vehicle with interest @ 18% per annum from 14.04.2012 till the actual date of payment along with penalty of JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 14.04.2012 Mahindra- No.HR-26 Company, Gurugram for sale consideration of 14,11,550/ vehicle was suffering from 1. Noise in the engine 2. Door lock problem on front left and right side and noise thereof; 3. Doors also open automatically while the vehicle is running 4. Engine noise in the cabin 5. Noise in the gear bo 6. Noise in the chassis and loud noise in left side front wheel 3. These defects were reported by the petitioner to respondent No.1. The petitioner had narrow escape when the left side window of the vehicle opened automatically on 18.04.2012. The vehicle was hit by a motorcyclist from the vehicle. The petitioner paid Rs. 54,710/ matter was to correct the said defect. The said act on the part of respondent No.1 is deficiency in t respondent No.1 but the defects remained unrectified. Legal notice was sent by the petitioner to respondent No.1 but no action was taken. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner file complaint dated under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in District Consumer Forum, Gurugram dated CWP No.36667 of 2025 The case of the petitioner is that on 14.04.2012 -500-XUV, W-8 model, white colour bearing registration 26-BR-8134 from respondent No.1 , Gurugram for sale consideration of 14,11,550/-. The said vehicle was delivered to him on 16.04. vehicle was suffering from number of defects i.e. Noise in the engine; Door lock problem on front left and right side and noise thereof; Doors also open automatically while the vehicle is running Engine noise in the cabin; Noise in the gear box; se in the chassis and loud noise in left side front wheel These defects were reported by the petitioner to respondent No.1. The petitioner had narrow escape when the left side window of the vehicle opened automatically on 18.04.2012. The vehicle was hit by a motorcyclist from behind thereby causing damage to the the vehicle. The petitioner paid Rs. 54,710/ matter was again reported to respondent No.1 but respondent No.1 failed to correct the said defect. The said act on the part of respondent No.1 is deficiency in the service. The vehicle was taken to workshop of respondent No.1 but the defects remained unrectified. Legal notice was sent by the petitioner to respondent No.1 but no action was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner file complaint dated under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in District Consumer Forum, Gurugram dated CWP No.36667 of 2025 -2- The case of the petitioner is that on 14.04.2012, he purchased a 8 model, white colour bearing registration 8134 from respondent No.1- M/S Sterling Motors , Gurugram for sale consideration of an amount of Rs. . The said vehicle was delivered to him on 16.04.2012. The number of defects i.e. Door lock problem on front left and right side and noise thereof; Doors also open automatically while the vehicle is running; se in the chassis and loud noise in left side front wheel. These defects were reported by the petitioner to respondent No.1. The petitioner had narrow escape when the left side window of the vehicle opened automatically on 18.04.2012. The vehicle was hit by a hereby causing damage to the rear portion of the vehicle. The petitioner paid Rs. 54,710/- for repair of the vehicle. The reported to respondent No.1 but respondent No.1 failed to correct the said defect. The said act on the part of respondent No.1 is he service. The vehicle was taken to workshop of respondent No.1 but the defects remained unrectified. Legal notice was sent by the petitioner to respondent No.1 but no action was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed complaint dated under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in District Consumer Forum, Gurugram dated 23.08.2012 a 8 model, white colour bearing registration M/S Sterling Motors Rs. The These defects were reported by the petitioner to respondent No.1. The petitioner had narrow escape when the left side window of the vehicle opened automatically on 18.04.2012. The vehicle was hit by a rear portion of for repair of the vehicle. The reported to respondent No.1 but respondent No.1 failed to correct the said defect. The said act on the part of respondent No.1 is he service. The vehicle was taken to workshop of respondent No.1 but the defects remained unrectified. Legal notice was d complaint dated under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection 23.08.2012 JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (Annexure P averments the complaint vide order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P there is no manufacturing defects in the vehicle in dispute and that respondent No.1 promptly and efficiently rectified the problem of noise engine by its replacement. Commission Haryana, Panchkula vide its order dated 23.01.2017 and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide its order dated 08.08 District Consumer Forum, Gurugram. He prayed that his vehicle needs replacement along with compensation to him for deficiency in the service on the part of respondent No.1. 5. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through 6. The District Consumer Forum, Gurugram in the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P any documentary evidence to support that the vehicle was having manufacturing defects. The vehicle for repair after accident Rs.1350/- made on 30.06.2012 at 2998 KM by respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.188/- as per Vehicle History Sheet. The engine was replaced and after replacement of engine, Satisfaction Note dated 17.12.2012 signed by the petitioner. The District Consumer Forum, Gurugram observed that the complainant failed to lead any cogent evide CWP No.36667 of 2025 (Annexure P-1). Respondent No.1 in averments. The District Consumer Forum, Gurugram erred in the complaint vide order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P there is no manufacturing defects in the vehicle in dispute and that respondent No.1 promptly and efficiently rectified the problem of noise by its replacement. The State Consumer Disput Commission Haryana, Panchkula vide its order dated 23.01.2017 and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide its order dated 08.08.2025, wrongly and erroneously Consumer Forum, Gurugram. He prayed that his vehicle needs replacement along with compensation to him for deficiency in the service on the part of respondent No.1. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the record. The District Consumer Forum, Gurugram in the order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-4) observed that the complainant/petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to support that the vehicle was having manufacturing defects. The vehicle in dispute was with respondent No.1 repair after accident, sitting at 2933KM and respondent No.1 charged vide bill dated 29.06.2012, though later on made on 30.06.2012 at 2998 KM by respondent No.1 for a sum of as per Vehicle History Sheet. The engine was replaced and after replacement of engine, Satisfaction Note dated 17.12.2012 signed by the petitioner. The District Consumer Forum, Gurugram observed that the complainant failed to lead any cogent evide CWP No.36667 of 2025 -3- its written reply, denied the District Consumer Forum, Gurugram erred in dismissing the complaint vide order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-4) by holding that there is no manufacturing defects in the vehicle in dispute and that respondent No.1 promptly and efficiently rectified the problem of noise in The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula vide its order dated 23.01.2017 and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide its .2025, wrongly and erroneously upheld the order of Consumer Forum, Gurugram. He prayed that his vehicle needs replacement along with compensation to him for deficiency in the service With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have The District Consumer Forum, Gurugram in the order dated 18.03.2014 4) observed that the complainant/petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to support that the vehicle was having in dispute was with respondent No.1 2933KM and respondent No.1 charged hough later on, running repair was made on 30.06.2012 at 2998 KM by respondent No.1 for a sum of as per Vehicle History Sheet. The engine was replaced and after replacement of engine, Satisfaction Note dated 17.12.2012 was duly signed by the petitioner. The District Consumer Forum, Gurugram observed that the complainant failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove denied the dismissing 4) by holding that there is no manufacturing defects in the vehicle in dispute and that in es Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula vide its order dated 23.01.2017 and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide its upheld the order of Consumer Forum, Gurugram. He prayed that his vehicle needs replacement along with compensation to him for deficiency in the service With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have The District Consumer Forum, Gurugram in the order dated 18.03.2014 4) observed that the complainant/petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to support that the vehicle was having in dispute was with respondent No.1 2933KM and respondent No.1 charged running repair was made on 30.06.2012 at 2998 KM by respondent No.1 for a sum of as per Vehicle History Sheet. The engine was replaced and after was duly signed by the petitioner. The District Consumer Forum, Gurugram nce to prove JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or deficiency in providing services to him. The engine of the vehicle in question had already been replaced and body of vehicle was damaged in two accidents caused by the petitioner just after pu within 2 ½ months of its purchase. For the purpose of replacement of vehicle, technical expert report is required to be proved by the complainant/petitioner 7. The State Consumer Disput and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi failed to find any illegality or irregularity in the order of Consumer Forum, Gurugram three forums that there are no manufa purchased the vehicle. 8. No expert opinion regarding any alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle had been submitted before any of the forums himself expressed the engine by issuing ‘Satisfaction Note’ dated 17.12.2012 District Consumer Forum, Gurugram Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi are based on appreciation of facts and law orders dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure P passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurugram Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula Consumer Commission, New Delhi CWP No.36667 of 2025 any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or deficiency in providing services to him. The engine of the vehicle in question had already been replaced and body of vehicle was damaged in two accidents caused by the petitioner just after purchase of vehicle, first within two days and second within 2 ½ months of its purchase. For the purpose of replacement of vehicle, technical expert report is required to be proved by the complainant/petitioner, which he failed to prove. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi failed to find any illegality or irregularity in the order of Consumer Forum, Gurugram. There are concurrent findings of abovesaid forums that there are no manufacturing defects purchased the vehicle. No expert opinion regarding any alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle had been submitted before any of the forums himself expressed the satisfaction regarding the repair and replacement of engine by issuing ‘Satisfaction Note’ dated 17.12.2012 District Consumer Forum, Gurugram, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula and the National Consumer isputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi are based on appreciation of and law in its rightful perspective. No interference in the orders dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-5) and 08.08.2025 (Annexure P passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurugram Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula Consumer Commission, New Delhi respectively CWP No.36667 of 2025 -4- any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or deficiency in providing services to him. The engine of the vehicle in question had already been replaced and body of vehicle was damaged in two accidents caused by the f vehicle, first within two days and second within 2 ½ months of its purchase. For the purpose of replacement of vehicle, technical expert report is required to be proved by the which he failed to prove. es Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi failed to find any illegality or irregularity in the order of District . There are concurrent findings of abovesaid cturing defects when the petitioner No expert opinion regarding any alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle had been submitted before any of the forums. The petitioner satisfaction regarding the repair and replacement of engine by issuing ‘Satisfaction Note’ dated 17.12.2012. The decisions of , the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula and the National Consumer isputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi are based on appreciation of No interference in the impugned 5) and 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurugram, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula and the National respectively, is required. any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or deficiency in providing services to him. The engine of the vehicle in question had already been replaced and body of vehicle was damaged in two accidents caused by the f vehicle, first within two days and second within 2 ½ months of its purchase. For the purpose of replacement of vehicle, technical expert report is required to be proved by the es Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi District . There are concurrent findings of abovesaid when the petitioner No expert opinion regarding any alleged manufacturing defect in the . The petitioner satisfaction regarding the repair and replacement of . The decisions of , the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula and the National Consumer isputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi are based on appreciation of impugned 6) the State Consumer the National JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands dis (ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Jyoti-IV CWP No.36667 of 2025 In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dis ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable : CWP No.36667 of 2025 -5- In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No JYOTI 2026.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document