The court held that the complaint was maintainable against the authorized dealer and service center, but not against the manufacturer. The court found that the opponent No. 2 had diligently repaired the car and there was no deficiency in service. The court dismissed the complaint.

ORDER

Mrs. Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member. - Complainant - Mr. Thomas Valy has filed present consumer complaint against the opponent by alleging deficiency in service under/Section 12 read with Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (2) Facts giving rise to the present consumer complaint in short are as under:

The complaint is against the Opponents who sale and service the international brand of Mercedes-Benz passenger cars in India for deficient and defrauding service. Opponent No. 1-Mercedes-Benz is a private limited company. Opponent No. 2 is the authorised dealer and service centre of Opponent No. 1. Complainant owns a Mercedes car having registration number MH 04 BQ 9010 registered in the year 2003. Car was in the name of complainant's company, Cochin Cements Ltd. It was later transferred in the name of the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that car's engine was overheating after any long drive so complainant sent the said car to the Opponent No. 2 on 20.8.2010. Complainant was informed on the same day by the Opposite Party No. 2 on inspection that, "we found white sludge formation in the coolant reservoir and engine oil getting mixed with coolant. The car has to be checked to understand the root cause of the problem and such jobs are carried out at Andheri workshop". Opposite Party No. 2 further asked Complainant to allow it to tow the car to the workshop at Andheri, Mumbai with towing charges of Rs. 4,000 plus taxes. Complainant gave his consent by email. Opponent No. 2 also stated that the duration and scope of repairs can be conveyed to the complainant only once proper diagnosis has been carried out. The next day itself car was moved by the Opponent No. 2 to Andheri workshop. The Complainant had to talk to Mr. Biren Chapaneri, service adviser of Opponent No. 2, at least 10 times to inquire as to whether the car has been checked to understand the root cause of the problem and the expenses required to rectify/repair the same. Complainant made couple of calls to Mr. Tarkeshwar Rao at the Mercedes-Benz office in Pune for his kind intervention. On 26th August, at 5.19 p.m. complainant received email from the Opponent No. 2 to inform that they had taken note of the jobs recommended by him and had inspected the car thoroughly. Estimate of Rs. 1,89,571 was given for (a) regular service dues and (b) for Coolant malfunction on cluster.

2. It is submitted that after receiving the said information and estimate, complainant gave his consent by email for the work. Opponent No. 2 took almost a month to complete the work. During that time complainant called Opponent No. 2 for so many times to know the progress of the work. Every time the telephone operator assured that the person concerned would call the complainant back but it never happened. Complainant was dissatisfied with die Opponent No. 2. He has expressed his dissatisfaction many times to Mr. Rao at Mercedes-Benz, Pune. Mr. Rao talked to the G.M. of the Opponent No. 2. Complainant received the final invoice of Rs. 1,98,301 on 22.9.2010 and same was paid by the complainant at the office of the Opponent No. 2. The complainant was informed on 23.9.2010 that the car wasbeing sent to him. Since complainant did not receive the car on the said day he called and checked with the Opponent No. 2. On next day the complainant was informed that the A/C of the car was not working. On 25.9.2010 complainant received email from the Opponent No. 2 stating that die car was called back half a way from drop i.e. on 23.9.2010 when it was found that A/C was not working at all. Complainant explained to Opponent No. 2 that there was no complaint with A/C when the car was delivered. Complainant argued with Opponent No. 2 that it is its responsibility to return the car in good condition, since there was no complaint with the A/C when the car was delivered to the Opponent No.