A vehicle purchased for personal use of a company director does not constitute a commercial purchase under consumer protection law; inherent manufacturing defects established warrant full refund and compensation.

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

The facts in brief are that on the strength of advertisements, representations, and promotional claims made by the opposite parties no.1 to 5, through various platforms, the complainant through its representatives approached opposite party no.5 to purchase a luxury SUV, BMW X7 xDrive40d M Sport, costing approximately Rs.1.5 Crores, exclusively for the personal use of its Director, Mr. Ritesh Sehgal, as a perquisite. To finance the purchase, a loan of Rs.1,31,00,000/- was availed from opposite party no.6 and disbursed directly to opposite party no.5 on 26.04.2024, with EMIs of Rs. 2,71,299/- payable over 60 months starting from 05.05.2024 (Annexure C-2), along with payment of processing fees, stamp duty, and document charges. After payment of the balance Rs. 1,90,000/- by the complainant, the car was delivered on 26.04.2024, and an invoice (Annexure C-3) for Rs. 1,32,90,000/- was issued, along with Rs. 1,32,900/- paid towards TCS. The complainant further spent Rs. 1,22,983/- + Rs. 20,419/- for accessories (Annexure C-4) and Rs. 3,02,906/- towards comprehensive insurance with Bajaj Allianz (Annexure C-5). An extended warranty for 4 years (from 26.04.2025 to 25.04.2028) was also purchased. However, despite such substantial investment, the Director of the complainant encountered serious issues when, on 01.07.2024, a stone accidentally damaged the sunroof, and the car (barely driven for 2000 km) was handed over to dealership at Faridabad for repairs the following day. Though the vehicle was initially expected back in 5 days, additional defects were observed during the test run. While the complainant paid for the PPF coating (Annexure C-6), he was shocked to learn of an underlying electrical issue, initially attributed to a faulty battery, but later diagnosed via email on 13.07.2024 as a malfunctioning DME (Digital Motor Electronics), a core component responsible for the entire engine and electronic system. The opposite parties no.1 to 5 admitted the defect, stated that the DME part was unavailable in India and would be imported from Germany, but failed to provide a concrete timeline. Throughout this period, the complainant received repeated apologies and vague assurances from BMW representatives through a series of emails (Annexure C-7). Due to the delay, an old and inferior model-BMW X1 was provided temporarily, despite repeated requests for a comparable vehicle. After prolonged follow-ups, and no resolution despite promises, the complainant served a legal notice dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure C-8 & C-9), demanding replacement of the defective car or refund of the entire amount with interest, reimbursement of EMI interest, costs of accessories and coating, and compensation for the mental harassment and loss of reputation suffered. Despite the notice, opposite parties no.1 to 5 and 7 neither responded nor took any substantive action, though on 03.08.2024, BMW representatives contacted the complainant for vehicle delivery, which led to further suspicion as the part supposedly awaited from Germany had “suddenly” arrived. The complainant expressed his protest in an email dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure C-10), and finally, the vehicle was returned after 43 days on 13.08.2024 but received under protest, with no repair documentation provided (email dated 13.08.2024). Shockingly, within a week, the vehicle again began exhibiting "power problems" from 20.08.2024, clearly indicating that the root issue had not been resolved. Despite confronting the opposite parties concerned, no satisfactory explanation was offered. The vehicle was again handed over f