SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
OSL Prestige Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Naveen Nayyer —Respondent
First Appeal No.1287 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 30/05/2018 in Complaint No. 952/2017 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 7.1.2020

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr Advocate with Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajat Sehgal, Advocate with Mr. Adith Nair, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
After warranty if any component goes wrong, the responsibility for its repair or replacement will be on the car owner.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Defect in Car – After the expiry of two years complainant alleges some defects in the car – No expert report has been submitted by the complainant – After warranty if any component goes wrong, the responsibility for its repair or replacement will be on the car owner – No norms have been fixed for defects to develop in such cars – Held that, without any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the order for replacement of the vehicle after so many years is not justified and cost awarded as Rs.2.5 lakh. [Paras 5, 7, 13 and 14]

Result: Appeal allowed partly.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30th May 2018 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘the State Commission’) in Complaint Case no. 952 of 2017.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a car BMW 7 Series from the appellant/ Opposite party on 02.02.2012 for a sum of Rs.68,26,529/- bearing registration no.WB 06J/4999, with a warranty of two years. During the warranty period the car was functioning normally. On 15.09.2016 the complainant brought the car to the service centre of the opposite party for regular servicing. The technicians found out certain defects in gear box of the car. The complainant left the said car with the service centre of the opposite party. The opposite party gave a service quote for R.10,20,813/-. It was claimed by the complainant that the defect was a manufacturing defect, therefore, he was not required to make any payment to the opposite parties. Later on another quote of Rs.7,61,138/- was sent after giving a discount of Rs.2,59,695/-. This communication was done via e-mail on 18.10.2016. After receiving the objection from the complainant, the opposite party again sent an e-mail dated 29.03.2017 and confirmed that they would bear the cost of transmission assembly replacement of Rs.5,52,564/- only and rest of the amount should be paid by the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party started avoiding the complainant and after several follow-ups the opposite party informed that they could only provide the service if the complainant pays for the service amounting to Rs.10,20,813/- after deducting cost of Rs.5,52,564/- which according to the complainant was an abnormal price. The complainant alleged that the car in question was lying in the service centre of the opposite party for approximately 126 days. Thereafter the complainant preferred a consumer complaint against the opposite party.

3. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 30.05.2018 allowed the complaint and passed the following order:

1. “The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to take back the present vehicle of the complainant and to replace the same with a new vehicle of same model and make, i.e., BMW 740 LI Sedan (Color Imperial Blue Metallic) within 45 days from the date;

1. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation ofRs.5,00,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date till its realisation;

2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date till its realisation”.

4. Hence the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the vehicle was purchased on 02.02.2012 and the warranty of the vehicle was for two years and thus warranty expired in February 2014. After the expiry of further two years, in the year 2016, for the first time, the complainant alleges some defects in the car and the vehicle was brought to the dealer/ appellant on 15.09.2016. The vehicle was examined and it was found that there was some defect in the gear box of the car and the same was informed to the complainant and an estimate/ service quote was given for Rs.10,20,813/- on 26.09.2016. Later on, as a good will gesture, the appellant gave some rebate and invoice/ service quote was given for Rs.7.61,138/-. However, the complainant did not pay any amount and filed the present consumer complaint before the State Commission being Complaint Case no. 952 of 2017 on 21.12.2017 alleging manufacturing defect in the car. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that once the warranty period was over, the repair of the car could be d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top