Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38541

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R. Subbiah, President
Mr.R.Sambath Kumar – Appellant
Versus
BMW Group – Respondent
C.C.No.8 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arun C.Mohan
For the Respondents: Dinesh Balachandran

A manufacturer is not liable for manufacturing defects without expert evidence, but is bound by voluntary goodwill settlement offers. Dealers remain independently liable for service deficiencies, and consumers may cumulatively pursue remedies for service failures alongside enforcement of specific goodwill commitments made by the manufacturer.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 47 - Deficiency in service - Burden of proof regarding manufacturing defect - Requirement of expert evidence - Where a consumer alleges a manufacturing defect in a complex product such as a motor vehicle, specific expert or technical evidence is required to prove the presence of such defect at the time of manufacture. (Paras 3, 8, 17)

(B) Liability of Manufacturer vs. Dealer - Principal-to-principal relationship - Manufacturer cannot be held automatically liable for service deficiencies attributed to an authorized dealer unless a manufacturing defect is proven. (Paras 3, 7, 18)

(C) Voluntary Offer of Settlement - Legal enforceability - A voluntary offer to replace a product as a gesture of goodwill, when made formally in response to a grievance, may be held as a binding undertaking regardless of whether a manufacturing defect is independently proved, as it acknowledges the consumer's grievance. (Paras 19, 20)

(D) Independent Causes of Action - Claims against a dealer for deficient after-sales service and remedies for a product’s substantive performance can be pursued cumulatively. (Paras 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
An individual purchased a luxury car which subsequently developed repeated technical issues. The vehicle was frequently sent for repairs, yet performance problems persisted, including a breakdown in traffic. The manufacturer offered to replace the vehicle as a goodwill gesture while denying the existence of a manufacturing defect, which the consumer declined in favor of seeking a full refund and compensation. The consumer filed a complaint against both the manufacturer and the dealer for deficiency of service and manufacturing defects.

Findings of Court:
While there is no technical evidence to establish a manufacturing defect that would hold the manufacturer liable for a refund, the dealer’s failure to provide effective after-sales service and maintain communication entitles the consumer to compensation for mental agony. Furthermore, the manufacturer's initial voluntary offer to replace the vehicle constitutes a formally acknowledged remedial step that the consumer may choose to enforce.

Issues: Whether the manufacturer is liable for a refund in the absence of expert evidence; whether a voluntary goodwill offer is enforceable; and whether the dealer is liable for deficiency in service due to poor post-sale handling.

Ratio Decidendi: Though a manufacturing defect requires expert proof, a consumer remains entitled to compensation from a dealer for proven deficiencies in service quality and communication. Additionally, a manufacturer’s written goodwill offer to replace a product is an enforceable commitment that exists independently of the legal requirement to prove a manufacturing defect.

Result: Complaint allowed in part. The consumer may opt to enforce the manufacturer’s offer for vehicle replacement, and the dealer is ordered to pay compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual matrix of consumer grievance regarding car defects. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. dealer versus manufacturer liability disputes in consumer law. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. the requirement of expert evidence for manufacturing defects. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. enforceability of voluntary settlement offers made by manufacturers. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
5. final adjudication of claims against manufacturer and dealer. (Para 22)

This Complaint came up for final hearing on 10.01.2025 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties and on perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

This complaint has been filed under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as against the opposite parties, with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,57,88,579.74, incurred towards purchase of the car; to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as on date and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- for every day here onwards towards compensation for the mental agony and to pay costs of the Complaint.

2. The case of the complainant is that, he is the owner of a BMW X7 Car bearing Chassis No. WBACW8706NY 410162 and Registration Number TN 14 AP 0001. The said car was purchased by him upon full payment of a sum of Rs.1,42,51,203/-. The car was delivered to him on 13th July, 2022, with applicable warranties as to its reliability and roadworthiness. In fact, on multiple occasions he noticed unseemly engine vibration and approached the 2nd opposite party to rectify the same. This situation of lacking in speed and pick up persisted for quite some time and he had sent the car for service at the 2nd opposite party's service centre for 5 times. At all occasions the 2nd opposite party, assured the complainant that there was absolutely no issue with the car. The said issues kept cropping up on almost weekly basis and consequently the complainant was unable to fully utilize the car for long journeys due to the patently suspect nature of its reliability. While so, on 10th November, 2022, the car developed certain nasty engine vibrations and other technical problems. The complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party seeking remedial measures. But, unbelievably, there was callous response from the 2nd opposite party that they did not have any drivers to pick up the car for inspection. On 11th November, 2022, again the complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to inspect the vehicle. Yet again the 2nd opposite party refused to pick up the car. The 2nd opposite party refused to show any manner of customer courtesy and the complainant was forced to drop the car to the service centre all by himself. This caused lot of inconvenience to the complainant. When the car was taken to the service centre, it was completely stalled and the display unit indicated "Check Control - Stop Drive train" and displayed "Contact roadside assistance. Stop carefully and exit ready-to-drive mode. Do not continue driving. Secure vehicle with parking brake when stationary. Call roadside assistance". Due to this unexpected collapse of the brand new car and collusive negligence shown by the 2nd opposite party, the complainant very narrowly missed a major accident with a truck near the Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam around 10 AM, where the car broke down. The complainant had contacted the 2nd opposite party multiple times to tow the car to which the 2nd opposite party turned deaf ears and after repeated requests, the 2nd opposite party sent technicians, who tried starting the car and after failing, towed the car. The complainant left the car with the 2nd opposite party for service hoping that the 2nd opposite party would promptly remedy the issue. But to the shock and surprise of the complainant the 2nd opposite party refused to even properly communicate with the complainant as to the status

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38541

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONR. Subbiah, PresidentMr.R.Sambath Kumar – AppellantVersusBMW Group – RespondentC.C.No.8 of 2023

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R. Subbiah, President
Mr.R.Sambath Kumar – Appellant
Versus
BMW Group – Respondent
C.C.No.8 of 2023