The main legal point established is that the complainant must prove allegations of manufacturing defect, defective safety mechanism, or unfair trade practice to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

G.A. Ahuja, Member - Heard Mr. P.A. Vakil learned Advocate for the complainant, Mr. Pandit learned Advocate for the Opponent No. 1 and Mr. Ketan Kamdar learned Advocate for the Opponent No. 2.

Complainant had filed this complaint with prayer to direct the respondent to replace the complainant's car with a new Mercedes Benze of the same class which he purchased form the Opponent No. 2. In the alternate with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 20,82, 421 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident i.e. from 28.5.2003 till realization, and to direct the respondent to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 70,00,000 under the head of "mental, physical and financial hardship, trauma, stress and inconvenience, deprivation of the enjoyment of his vehicle on account of the defective goods supplied and deficient services rendered by the respondents" with cost.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the present complaint in short are as under:

That the complainant purchased Mercedes Benze (Model E 230 C 1998 from the opponent No. 2 on payment of Rs. 29,46,570 vide cheque No. 424918 dated 10.11.1998. Opponent No. 1 is a manufacturer of the aforesaid car. Aforesaid car was purchased for the personal use of the complainant. It bears the registration No. GJ 1BP 8874. On 28.5.2003, complainant was driving his car on Ahmedabad Vadodara Express Highway at an approximate speed of 100 110 kms. At around 7.00 p.m. near Nadiad the left side rear tyre of the car bursted making the complainant lose his control over the car and the car dashed with the road divider and crossed the road divider and landed on the other side of the highway. Complainant suffered multiple injuries and was rushed to the SAL Hospital at Ahmedabad at 23.05 hours. On the very same day he was operated upon. He suffered fracture on his right shoulder. He was discharged from the hospital on 6th June, 2003. He was advised rest for 120 days. Complainant managed his car towed from the place of incident to the workshop of the opponent No. 2 because opponent No. 2 though informed about the incident had shown inability to tow the car to his workshop because of want of such arrangement. The brochure of the said vehicle being circulated by the respondent No. 2 on behalf of Respondent No. 1 promised a world class automobile to the customer. The said brochure also strongly highlighted the reliability, safety and durability features of the said vehicle expecially features regarding the opening of frontal and side air bags in the event of any impact at the time of accident. The tyres used in the said vehicle were also of Bridge Stone Company which was a recognized and reputed name in the tyre industry. Not only that one of the features which attracted the complainant was the unique safety mechanism of the vehicle by which the dickey of the car would open immediately in case of collision which would reduce the speed of the vehicle thereby reducing the impact of the collision therefore complainant was interested to place the order of the aforesaid vehicle. It is alleged in the complaint that the tyres of the car were defective or of inferior quality. The car had run for only 18,000 kms. approximately in five years and there was no plausible cause for the tyre to burst on account of wear and tear. Hence, complainant had alleged that because of the defective tyre and because of the safety mechanism in the car were defective, accident had occurred causing grievous injury to the complainant. He is a whole time Director of Meghmani Organics Limited, having annual turnover of Rs. 20,240.34 lakh for the last financial year. The complainant is responsible for all purchase of raw materials and all other import items for the company. The monthly purchase of the company is 15-20 crores for which complainant is responsible. At the time of incident the complainant was also in-charge of purchase of raw material for the project of Agro Division at Ankleshwa