Back
SUBHASH CHANDRA, SADHNA SHANKER
Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
BMW India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member—The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) in challenge to the Order dated 01.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in complaint No. 44 of 2017 whereby the complaint was dismissed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainants’) and the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘manufacturer’ and the ‘dealer’, respectively) and have perused the record including inter alia the impugned order dated 01.08.2017 and the memorandum of appeal. None is present for respondent no. 3.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants purchased a BMW 730Ld of BMW 7-Series (‘BMW’) from the manufacturer through the dealer at Chandigarh for a sum of Rs.82 lakh for the official/personal use of Dheeraj Garg, the managing director of complainant No. 1. It is alleged that the car was represented as ‘Zero Error Car’ and advertised under tag line “sheer driving pleasure, driving luxury and ultimate peace of mind’. The ve
(1) Defect – It is well-established that if a defect in goods cannot be determined without proper analysis, an independent expert report is required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.(2) Corporate Do....
The purchase of a vehicle by a company for its managing director's personal use does not constitute a commercial purpose, allowing for consumer protection remedies.
(1) Commercial Use Admission – A categorical admission of commercial use in the pleadings creates a jurisdictional hurdle. The Commission reaffirmed that whether a party is a “Consumer” must be decid....
The court concluded that a purchase made for business promotion does not exclude the purchaser from being classified as a 'consumer', and the allegations of misrepresentation were unsubstantiated.
A complainant must prove manufacturing defect in a vehicle by adequate and admissible evidence supported by an expert opinion to claim total replacement or refund of the purchase price.
The court ruled that a manufacturing defect requires substantial evidence; observed minor issues in vehicles do not justify replacement without such evidence.
Manufacturing defect—Onus to prove manufacturing defect by way of inspection by an Expert would lie upon Complainant’s side—But this cannot be a water tight proposition in all cases.
“Unapproved fitment” - Merely typing the expression “unapproved fitment” does not even by preponderance of evidences show that there was any unapproved fitment.
Purchase of vehicle – Manufacturing defect – Impleadment of manufacturer – Defect & allegation of deficiency was existing as a cause & it was continuing even upon filing of complaint – Bar of limitat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
