SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 7051

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RAJESH K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER, PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER
M/S DHIMAN SWITCHGEAR PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/69/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Geetika Sharma
For the Respondents: Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Sh. Harjot Singh Bedi

Consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act acknowledged, confirming consumer status despite potential commercial usage; service deficiencies warrant compensation.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 2(7) and 2(11) - Complaint regarding vehicle defects - The commission considered consumer status and established deficiencies in service - Onus lies on the dealer to prove absence of consumer status - Injuries acknowledged lead to partial allowance of claims. (Paras 15, 16, 20)

(B) Deficiency in Service - The persistence of issues with the product within the first months of ownership is indicative of inadequate after-sales service, constituting deficiency under legal standards. (Paras 16, 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
The complaint was initiated due to repeated defects in a Mercedes Benz vehicle allegedly purchased for personal use by a company through its director, invoking consumer protection rights despite claims of commercial usage by the vendors. Key defects included software issues and physical malfunctions acknowledged by the manufacturer but inadequately addressed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the complainants were legitimate consumers and that there was a failure in after-sales service leading to mental agony.

Issues: Whether the complainants qualify as consumers under the Act, if manufacturing defects exist, and if there was a deficiency in services.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the vehicle was for personal use, the entity qualifies as a consumer. It also highlighted that absent technical evidence on defects impedes the claim for a full refund though deficiencies in service merited redress.

Result: Complaint partly allowed with compensation awarded for service deficiencies.

Table of Content
1. filing of consumer complaint by juristic person. (Para 2)
2. persistent vehicle defects and complaints. (Para 3 , 4 , 6)
3. acknowledgment of issues by manufacturer. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. consumer status irrespective of corporate purchase. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. deficiency in after-sales service warrants compensation. (Para 19 , 20)

RAJESH K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

The present complaint has been being filed by Complainant No.1, a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which is a juristic person competent to sue and be sued in its own name, through its Director Gurnam Singh, Complainant No.2, who is duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 22.06.2024 to initiate the present complaint. Complainant No.1 had purchased a Mercedes Benz C-200 vehicle for the personal use of its Director, Complainant No.2, from Opposite Party No.2—IJM Panjab Motors Pvt. Ltd.—an authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1, Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of the said vehicle, for a total consideration exceeding Rs.57,00,000/- including Rs.56,05,500/- towards invoice value and Rs.1,19,000/- towards insurance, besides Rs.5,05,907/- spent on registration. The booking was made in December 2023 with a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 11.12.2023, followed by the sale and delivery on 20.12.2023 under Order Booking No. C-IN-231212191236774, for a brand new vehicle bearing VIN: WIKAF4CB2PL011197. Despite assurances by the Opposite Parties regarding the vehicle being a world-class, defect-free product, post-delivery the car exhibited inherent manufacturing defects, particularly in the key feature “Mercedes Me App and Car Communication” that facilitates remote access and control of various vehicle functions such as keyless entry, engine ignition, air conditioning, tracking, etc. The said application was non-functional from the very beginning and despite multiple complaints through emails starting from 15.01.2024, followed by visits to the service centre on at least five occasions, the defect persisted without any resolution, causing mental agony and inconvenience. The problem was duly acknowledged by the Opposite Parties through various communications including emails dated 16.01.2024, 19.01.2024, and 23.01.2024, and continued even when the car was again serviced on 12.02.2024 and returned on 17.02.2024 without resolution. Additional issues were also highlighted including malfunctioning of the panoramic sunroof curtain, system validation (80A Fuse), malfunctioning of passenger seat, rear curtain, and leakage of washer fluid bottle, which were also acknowledged in various emails exchanged including those dated 14.02.2024, 16.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 11.04.2024, 14.05.2024, 15.05.2024, 27.05.2024 and most recently 22.06.2024. During the period intervening, the complainant vide email dated 24.4.2024 had agitated the unresolved issues and the problems being faced with the defective car and raised the following issues:-

(i.) Mercedes Me App & Car Communication.

(ii.) Panaromic sun roof sun blind/curtain.

(iii.) System validation (80A Fuse).

2. On 24.04.2024 the following issues had been addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties regarding the following:-

1. Mercedes Me App (Network) & Car Communication:

We inform you on 09.04.2024, regarding the network issue, as there is no network; picture enclosed. No solution has been provided till date as 16 days have passed.

2. Panoramic Sunroof Sunblind/Curtain: Panoramic Sunroof Sunblind/ Curtain is not working properly from the very first day. As told you many times regarding the same.

A. As per your words you have replaced the sunblind/curtain, but I personally have doubts as we are still facing the same issues again and again, even no valid document was shared for the replacement of sunblind/curtain.

B. As we have many times told you regarding sunblind/curtain, few days ago your engineer Mr. Kamal Jit Singh visited our home for the same and lubricated the sunblind/curtain and track, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top