Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2949

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, PRESIDENT, Dr. Inder Jit Singh, MEMBER
Mr. Kishor N. Shah – Appellant
Versus
M/s Mercedes Benz India Private Limited – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 301 of 2012

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Satvik Varma, Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, Mr. Akshay Luthra, Mr. Shantanu Parmar, Mr. Balram
For the Respondents: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Mr. Deepesh, Mr. Himanshu Gulliya, Mr. Arvind Nayar, Mr. Varun Kalra, Mr. Samir Malik, Mr. Akshay Joshi, Mr. Pranav Khanna

The court found that while manufacturing defects were not established, numerous defects in the vehicle led to compensation for the complainant, underscoring consumer rights under warranty provisions.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(f), and 13(1)(c) - Defective vehicle - Complaint against manufacturer and dealer for replacement and compensation for repeated failures of vehicle - Complainant failed to establish manufacturing defect, but defects in vehicle established through service records with extensive visits to workshop - Replacement of vehicle not ordered; compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- with 6% interest awarded for defects and deficiencies in service. (Paras 9.2, 12.10, 14.1, and 14.2)

(B) Maintainability - Complainant held to be consumer despite vehicle being used for commercial purposes, as misrepresentation by manufacturer and dealer found. (Paras 9.6 and 12.09)

Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a luxury vehicle, which experienced severe mechanical issues leading to frequent repairs within the warranty period. Multiple letters and contact reveal numerous complaints but inadequate resolution. The vehicle was not accepted by the complainant due to recurring problems, leading to the present complaint. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 10, and 11)

Findings of Court:
The court found the vehicle had several defects, warranting compensation but not total replacement, citing substantial maintenance records and warranty terms as defining factors. (Paras 14.1, 14.2, and 14.5)

Issues: The court addressed issues including whether the vehicle had defects, the applicability of consumer status due to commercial use, and the extent of liability of the manufacturer and dealer. (Paras 10 and 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined defects established through service records constituted grounds for compensation but did not meet the threshold for a manufacturing defect, thereby refining the obligations of the manufacturer under warranty provisions. (Paras 13.6 and 14.1)

Result: Complaint partially allowed with compensation awarded. (Para 14.4)

Table of Content
1. complainant filed a consumer complaint for defective vehicle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. opposite parties argue claims are speculative and meritless. (Para 4 , 5)
3. complainant claims service deficiencies and manufacturing defects. (Para 6)
4. evidence shows multiple issues arising with the vehicle. (Para 7 , 8)
5. court assesses nature of defects and service obligations. (Para 9 , 10 , 12)
6. court finds vehicle suffered from defects impacting service. (Para 11)
7. final order includes compensation terms and delivery conditions. (Para 13 , 14)

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 25.04.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 16.05.2025 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 301 OF 2012 Mr. Kishor N. Shah Office at Samruddhi Office Floor, Plot No. 157, 18th Road, Near Ambedkar Garden, Chembur (E) Mumbai -400 071 Complainant Versus

1. M/s Mercedes Benz India Private Limited Through its Managing Director Having its office at:

E-3 MIDC Chakan -Phase III, Taluka-Khed, Pune-411 501

2. M/s Auto Hanger (India) Private Limited Through its Managing Director

94-A, Off Saki Vihar Road, Kamani Oil Mills Lane, Chandivali, Andheri (East)

Mumbai-400 072 Opposite Parties BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER For the Complainant Mr. Satvik Varma, Senior Advocate Mr. Kartikey Bhatt, Advocate Mr. Akshay Luthra, Advocate Mr. Shantanu Parmar, Advocate Mr. Balram, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate Mr. Deepesh, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Gulliya, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2 Mr. Arvind Nayar, Senior Advocate Mr. Varun Kalra, Advocate Mr. Samir Malik, Advocate Mr. Akshay Joshi, Advocate Mr. Pranav Khanna, Advocate

ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH. MEMBER

1. The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainant against Opposite Parties (OPs) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OPs to:-

(D replace the defective vehicle with a thoroughly checked Mercedes Benz S Class 320 GDI (ii) pay Rs.8,61,00,000/- as compensation till date in addition of Rs.2,00,000/- per day till the date the vehicle is not replaced with a new one.

(iii) pay costs of proceedings.

2. Complaint was admitted on 01.02.2013. Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given in the Table below:

Sr No	Particulars	Date
T”	D/o Filing CC in NCDRC	15.11.2012
2	D/o Issue of Notice to OP(s)	05.12.2012
3	D/o Filing Reply/Written Statement by OP-1	21.03.2013
4 .	D/o Filing Reply/Written Statement by OP-2	29.01.2013
4	D/o filing Rejoinder by the Complainant(s)	13.11.2013
5	D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the Complainant	24.12.2014
6	D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the OP-1	11.02.2015
	D/o Filing Evidence by way of Affidavit by the OP-2	30.04.2015
7	D/o filing Written Synopsis by the Complainant(s)	18.11.2021
8	D/o filing Written Synopsis by the OP-1	01.11.2021
9	D/o filing Written Synopsis by the OP-2	31.01.2023

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the pleadings of the parties and other case records are that: -

On 13.11.2008, the complainant purchased a luxury automobile Mercedes Benz S Class 320 CDIL manufactured by OP-1- M/s Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized retail agent Opposite Party No. 2- Auto Hanger (India) Pvt. Ltd. for total consideration of Rs.82,62,747/- including Insurance and Road Tax. As per complainant, on 04.09.2010, the steering wheel of the car got jammed and was towed to workshop of OP-2. During the period from November 2008 to December 2010, the vehicle was parked in the workshop for various kinds of repairs, within a short period of buying various mechanical and technical problems arose in the vehicle like a) noise in the suspension b) errors in DVD system c) problems in engine d) gear jam e) clip of the vehicle’s fridge broke f) problem in closing the rear left door of the vehicle and g) malfunctioning of AC compression. The complainant sent a letter dated 18.01.2011 claiming

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2949

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONA.P. Sahi, PRESIDENT, Dr. Inder Jit Singh, MEMBERMr. Kishor N. Shah – AppellantVersusM/s Mercedes Benz India Private Limited – RespondentConsumer Complaint No. 301 of 2012

The court found that while manufacturing defects were not established, numerous defects in the vehicle led to compensation for the complainant, underscoring consumer rights under warranty provisions.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, PRESIDENT, Dr. Inder Jit Singh, MEMBER
Mr. Kishor N. Shah – Appellant
Versus
M/s Mercedes Benz India Private Limited – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 301 of 2012