STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No. CC/14/203 Shri. Vijay Prakashrao Dhere, Age: 45 years, Occupation: Business R/o. House No.10, S. No.105/3 Ghule Vasti, Manjri Bk.

Tal. Haveli, Pune 412 307 Through his Power of Attorney holder Shri. Sudhakar Vasudeo Velenkar Age: 75 years, Occupation: Social Worker Of Grahak Hitvardhini Sarvajanik Sanstha R/o. B-7, Shivsagar Phase I, 18/6A, Vadgaon (Bk) Manibaug Pune – 411 051. ………… Complainant Versus

1) M/s B. U. Bhandari Motors Pvt. Ltd.

101, Baner, Mumbai Bangaloru Highway Pune 411 045 Through its Directors/Managing Director Shri. Chandravadan Bhandari. ..… Opposite Party BEFORE:

Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Presiding Member Hon’ble Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member APPEARANCE:

For the Complainant: Advocate Shubham H. Misar For Opposite Party: Advocate Vertas Legal

JUDGMENT

(Date: 06-04-2026)

Per: Hon’ble Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member.

1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/203/2014 is filed by the complainant against opponent. It is the case of the complainant that, this complaint is re-filed after withdrawing the earlier on the same subject matter.

2. The Complainant submitted that in earlier consumer complaint CC/390/2013 had submitted Miscellaneous Application, praying that the Commission may pass an order to submit the vehicle for inspection and report to ARAI, Pune. But the Opponent raised preliminary objection of pecuniary jurisdiction and Commission dismissed the complaint on the point of jurisdiction.

3. The Complainant submitted that he showed his readiness to withdraw the complaint with permission to file a fresh complaint which was not granted. The Complainant had no choice but to withdraw the complaint and therefore the complaint was withdrawn. and filed this complaint before this Commission.

4. Fact of the case of the complainant that he booked a Mercedes Benz car, model E 250 CDI, with the Opponent, at Pune, in April 2010. Since there was a group of cars booked at the same time, the delivery of the car was assured on or about 9th October 2010. Accordingly, the Complainant got the delivery of the car, on 12th October, 2010. The "Star Ease Service Package Agreement" was executed on 11th October, 2010 with Opponent. The agreement remains in force up to 10th October, 2013 or 60,000 kms. Running whichever is earlier.

5. The Complainant submitted that he paid consideration of Rs.46,03,434/- In the month of July 2011, the said car was repaired for partonic system and the noise from roof of the car. The noise from the roof was a repetitive complaint. The running of the car, then was 8047 kms. On 28.07.2011, the car was repaired again for some minor defects. Then similar repairs were carried out again and again.

6. The Complainant submitted that the vehicle was leaking profusely in every rainy season. Although the Opponent stated that it was a problem in the roof, the Complainants stated that the vehicle was leaking to such an extent that the water from inside the vehicle had to be mopped up manually even after moderate rains. Being thoroughly disappointed with the after sales service and the repairs carried out, from time to time, by the Opponent.

7. The Complainant submitted that the notice was sent as the car was not repaired to the satisfaction of the Complainant after lodging the same with the Opponent, in their workshop at Baner, on 07.06.2013. The vehicle is with the Opponent as on the date of filing of this Complaint. The opponents arranged a meeting with their technical staff on 21st June 2013 and requested the Complainant to take delivery of the repaired vehicle by their letter dated 26th June 2013. The Complainant also received e-mail wherein the extension of warranty period for six months was offered. The Opponents again requested the Complainant to take the delivery of the vehicle by their letter dated 10th July, 2013.

8. The Complainant submitted that he, sent notice through Grahak Hitvardhini, to the Opponent on dated 20.