IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 Document – The complainants failed to produce any board resolution or other corporate document establishing that the vehicle was purchased solely for the personal use of complainant No.2.
(3) Personal capacity – It is evident that the vehicle was purchased in the name of complainant no. 1, a corporate entity rather than complainant no. 2 in his personal capacity.

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 vehicle carried a warranty for a period of two years from the date of its purchase. It is alleged that from the day one of the purchase, the said BMW car started giving problems such as mal-functioning of the clock, improper stereo performance, cracking voice, shaking front left passenger seat, etc. and these defects were brought to the notice of the manufacturer vide letter dated 27.03.2015 as well as vide previous emails dated 11.03.2015, 18.03.2015 & 20.03.2015 exchanged between the parties. Further, vide emails dated 20.4.2015, 16.04.2015 & 15.04.2015, the manufacturer admitted the inherent manufacturing defects in the BMW but they failed to offer any effective resolution to rectify the defects. It is also alleged that the manufacturer had admitted the manufacturing defects in their reply to the legal notice sent by the advocate.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint No. 228 of 2018 before the State Commission and the same was disposed of as settled subject to rectification of manufacturing defects in BMW car. It is alleged that despite change of seat, the defects could not be rectified by the manufacturer and the dealer. Therefore, another complaint No. 320 of 2016 was filed by complainant before the State Commission which was dismissed by the State Commission, vide order dated 07.07.2016 with liberty to file fresh one.

5. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission, Chandigarh with the following prayer:-

(i) Direct the Opposite Parties to either replace the defective car with a brand new one or refund the amount Rs.82,00,000/- spent on the new car, along with interest from the date of purchase till the date of the payment;

(ii) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as token re-imbursement of the various incidental expenses incurred on the running of the car, such as Road Tax, Insurance and which have gone waste, due to inherent defects in the car;

(iii) Opposite Parties also be held liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the compensation for the physical and mental harassment suffered by the complainant no.2.

(iv) Impose a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Opposite Parties as deterrent/punitive damages for indulging in unfair trade practice of selling a defective car;

(v) Complaint may be allowed with legal costs of Rs.55,000/-; and

Any other relief to which the Complainants may be entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the matter be passed in favor of the Complainants and against the Opposite Parties.

6. The manufacture and dealer contested the complaint by filing written statement. It is stated that the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is further stated that as per the settlement agreed, the car was properly repaired. It is further