STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/15/98 RAJEEV C K PRESENT ADDRESS - 8/27A, THIRUVATHIRA CHETAMCON P O THALASSERY KANNUR ,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus M/S PLATINO CLASSIC MOTORS PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - BUILDING NO 1/3699,VANDIPETTA NADAKKAVU P O KOZHIKODE

673011 ,KERALA.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: 20/05/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.98/2015 JUDGEMENT DATED : 20.05.2025 PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER COMPLAINANT:

Dr. Rajeev C.K., S/o Narayanan Nambiar, 8/27A, Thiruvathira, Chetamcoon P.O., Thalassery, Kannur – 670 101 (by Advs. Shyam Padman & S. Reghukumar)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. M/s Platino Classic Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd., Building No.1/3699, (by Advs.

Vandipetta, Nadakkavu P.O., Kozhikode – 673 011 Sandeep

2. M/s Platino Classic Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd.,, 11/6 B, NH 47, Vyttila- T. George &

Aroor Bypass Road, Maradu P.O., Cochin – 682 304 Hemanth

3. M/s BMW India Pvt. Ltd., DLF Cyber City, Phase II, Building No.8, Santhosh S.)

th

Tower B, 7 Floor, Gurgaon – 122 022

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.

rd

2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the dealer and service centre and the 3 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 st

1 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.

st

5. The 1 opposite party had intimated the complainant that all the defects and deficiencies would be attended to and the vehicle would be returned within a p