Complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect; damage resulted from mishandling vehicle in waterlogged conditions.

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is a complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with regard to the manufacturing defect of a car purchased by the complainant.

2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the dealer and service centre and the 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer of BMW India Pvt. Ltd.

3. The complainant had purchased a BMW 530 (D) car from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.64,45,139/-(Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Forty Five Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Nine only). The complainant had purchased the car by believing the promise and assurances made by the opposite parties regarding the superior quality, standard and safety, comfortable riding, prompt and efficient after sales service. But contrary to the promise and assurances, the vehicle started exhibiting various defects immediately after the purchase. There was wobbling of the tyres and veering towards the right side while the vehicle was driven. An unusual sound was also heard from the right front side. The complainant could find white dots/stains all over the body of the car. He had approached the 1st opposite party and reported the matter. Some rectification work was done, but the defects continued. The white dots on the body were left unattended. All the tyres have to be changed and rectification to be done within a period of one month of purchase itself which indicates that the vehicle was not of standard quality. Instead of repair and rectification, the deficiencies and defects persisted.

4. On 26.03.2013 the complainant was travelling to Thalassery to Nadapuram on the state highway, the vehicle came to a sudden stop when it reached Pettipalam, Chokli. Immediately the helpline was contacted. The vehicle had automatically locked. The sudden st stoppage of the vehicle interfered the traffic. Though the complainant had contacted the 1 opposite party, there was no prompt response. So the complainant was constrained to quit the place leaving the vehicle in the custody of his chauffer as block created by the car was creating strong and abusive response from others. A crane was left only by 12.30p.m. But the attempt to move the vehicle by lifting the front portion did not work as the rear wheels st got jammed. At around 2 p.m. two persons claiming to be the service personnel of the 1 opposite party had reached and attempted to start the vehicle, but failed. By 8.30p.m. towing bed arrived and the car was removed from the spot placing the back side of the vehicle in the towing bed.

5. The 1st opposite party had intimated the complainant that all the defects and deficiencies would be attended to and the vehicle would be returned within a period of 20 days. No alternate arrangements were made for his travel during the said period. Instead of st repeated requests and reminders, the 1 opposite party had failed and neglected to return the vehicle within the assured time or even later. Subsequently, it was intimated to the st complainant that the vehicle is having major defects which could not be rectified by the 1 nd opposite party and the vehicle had to be taken to Cochin to the 2 opposite party for further inspection and verification. It was also informed that the entire engine has to be changed as nd it had inherent manufacturing defects. The 2 opposite party had forwarded the insurance claim.

6. The complainant had been continuously following up the matter for a period of st less than two months for major defects warranting replacement of the engine. The 1 and 2 nd rd opposit