Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President & Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
H.G. Jain – Complainants
versus
Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Opp. Party
Consumer Complaint No.284 of 2015
Decided on 14.7.2025
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Automobile – Manufacturing defect – Method of an offer to sell products on less than their face value or customary price is in ordinary parlance of bargain referred to as a discount offer – Offer of a vehicle, as buy one get one free, was not a mere attraction but a tempting invitation, more or less enticing, when an alternative of a credit note of such a huge amount accompanied the same – Buyer, more particularly a businessman like Complainant ought to have treaded on this path with caution – Complainant cannot term it as a misleading bargain – Purchase of vehicle was a conscious decision of Complainant – Vehicle had been driven within mileage covered under warranty conditions. (Paras 25, 30, 31 and 33)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Automobile – Manufacturing defect – Vehicle need not necessarily have a manufacturing defect – Even if there is a defect within warranty period then liability can arise – Complainant had been raising issue of vehicle’s performance indicating persistent malfunctioning – Defect of leakage from sunroof even though attempted to be cured does not seem to be finally cured – Water leakage resulted in affecting electronic controls – Defect in sunroof and its leakage relates to manufacturing – Services rendered to remove the defect were deficient – Complainant was entitled to satisfactory use of vehicle and is also entitled to receive any damages if defects could not be cured and deficiency continued – Complaint allowed awarding sum of Rs.10 lakhs as a lump sum amount to Complainant for harassment suffered on account of continued and persistent defects that could not be removed resulting in imperfect functioning of vehicle. (Paras 46, 47, 48, 52, 53 and 55)
Result: Consumer Complaint allowed.
ORDER
A.P. Sahi, President.—This Complaint arises out of an allegation of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties regarding the defects in a luxury car purchased by the Complainant manufactured by Volkswagen and purchased by the Complainant from the dealer M/s B. U. Bhandari Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 3 herein. The Complaint was filed on 17.04.2015 in which notices were issued on 01.05.2015. The Complaint originally designed had four Opposite Parties namely 1. Volkswagen A.G. (Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft); 2. Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.; 3. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. and 4. B. U. Bhandari Automotive Pvt. Ltd. The original Opposite Party No. 1 situated at Germany was sought to be served through the Ministry of Law and Justice. This exercise of service continued for long and ultimately the Complainant moved an Application for deleting the Opposite Party No. 1 through IA/1194/2022 that was allowed on 17.02.2022. Consequently, Opposite Party No. 1 was struck off from the array of parties.
2. Of the remaining three, the original Opposite Party No. 2 and 3, now Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 were served but in spite of service of notice they failed to file their written version within time and consequently their right to file a written version was rejected on 14.10.2015. RA/275/2015 was filed seeking review of the said Order which was also rejected on 14.12.2015. The said Opposite Parties approached the Apex Court by filing special leave to Appeal No. 35031 of 2015 that was dismissed on 04.01.2016. Consequently, the said Opposite Parties had their right to file written version forfeited but they have appeared through their counsel and who have advanced their arguments in support of the legal contentions raised by them.
3. The present Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 underwent a legal change of entity under a scheme approved by the NCLT Mumbai vide Order dated 5.9.2019. A copy of the said Order was placed on record through IA No.17119 of 2024 filed on 27.11.2024 vide a Diary No.39044. The said Application has been allowed on 02.12.2024 by us whereafter the orders were reserved. Consequently, with a change of entity as above the amended Memo has been filed and the same is on record. According to the amended Memo the dealer is now the Opposite Party No. 3. It may be pointed out that the dealer who was originally the Opposite Party No. 4 has filed his reply on 02.02.2016 vide Diary No. 5064. The said reply is the only written version which is on record regarding the allegations made in the Complaint. Since that is the only reply on Record, the same has been taken into consideration along with the documents filed along with the said reply. A reply was filed to the said response and the matter has been heard accordingly.
4. The grievance of the Complainant is that from the date of purchase the Complainant was disappointed by the performance of the vehicle which is a product named ‘Phaeton’. The Complainant alleges that the said version of the vehicle that were produced very few in number were claimed by the manufacturers to be of the same level of cars as Bentley of England and such other luxury cars. The vehicle was purchased on 27.4.2011 for a sum of Rs.90,80,592/- inclusive of insurance and registration charges. The price of the vehicle was Rs.74,53,205/- and an extended warranty of two years was also purchased by the Complainant for a sum of Rs.87,725/-.
5. According to the Complainant the Vehicle was offered along with an additional attraction of a complementary Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car on purchase of the ‘Phaeton’. The Complainant was not interested in the second car and therefore, he was offered a credit note of Rs.31,61,250/-.
6. With the aforesaid attractions given by the company the Complainant was expecting a high level of performance but even the basic features like navigation, Bluetooth connectivity and other components were faulty and were not functioning. The windscreen cracked in April 2014 and by thi
(1) Vehicle need not necessarily have a manufacturing defect – Even if there is a defect within warranty period then liability can arise.(2) Admission is the best piece of evidence.
New vehicle with early repeated defects constitutes 'defect'; expert opinion not mandatory if cogent evidence; company director personal use qualifies as consumer; manufacturer-dealer jointly liable ....
(1) Manufacturing Defect vs. Recurring Defect – A “manufacturing defect” generally requires expert analysis under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. However, NCDRC clarified that if a new vehicle requires ....
(1) Manufacturing Defect – The term ‘Manufacturing Defect’ as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary is a deviation from design specifications during production resulting in a product’s defect, frailty or....
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.
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
