A claim for a full refund based on a manufacturing defect requires technical expert evidence; however, a dealer can be held liable for deficiency in service if they fail to promptly and competently diagnose and rectify vehicle faults.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Santanu Saha, Member

Genesis

1. The original complainant instituted this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 14 March 2018, complaining of repeated ignition failure and battery drainage in an Audi A4 TFSI car purchased as a new vehicle. Manufacturer of the vehicle is stated to be a division of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is the authorised dealer and service centre through whom the vehicle was sold and serviced. The complaint attributes unfair trade practice to Opposite Party No. 1 in placing an allegedly defective vehicle in the market and deficiency in after-sales service to Opposite Party No. 2.

2. The relief claimed is a direction upon the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to refund the purchase price of Rs.32.75 lakh with interest at 18 per cent per annum from November 2015 until realisation, together with Rs.20 lakh as compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental trauma and Rs.2 lakh as litigation cost.

Proceedings before this Commission

3. During the pendency of the complaint, the original complainant died. By order dated 2 February 2021, this Commission permitted substitution by the legal heirs and an amended complaint was filed on 2 March 2021. The substituted complainants therefore prosecute the cause of action and the monetary claim forming part of the estate of the deceased consumer.

4. Opposite Party No. 1 entered appearance, filed its defence and evidence and contested the proceeding. On 17 August 2023 it stated that it would not file a reply to the questionnaire submitted by the complainants. Opposite Party No. 2 did not file a written version within the time allowed and by order dated 19 December 2025, the complaint was directed to proceed ex parte against it.

5. The matter was taken up for final hearing on 8 July 2026. Learned counsel for the complainants and learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 were heard at length. The complaint and amended complaint, the written version of Opposite Party No. 1, evidence on affidavit, the written notes of argument, the correspondence and the other documents on record have been considered. Opposite Party No. 2 remained unrepresented.

Facts in brief

6. The original complainant agreed to purchase an Audi A4 TFSI car from Opposite Party No. 2 for Rs.32.75 lakh, paid in four instalments between 1 September and 7 November 2015. Opposite Party No. 2 issued its invoice on 7 November 2015. The vehicle was registered in West Bengal as WB02AH8171 and delivered on 10 November 2015.

7. The vehicle was initially insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited for the period 10 November 2015 to 9 November 2016. It was subsequently insured with Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited under an Auto Secure - Private Car Package Policy for the period 10 November 2016 to 9 November 2017.

8. According to the complainants, within a few months of purchase, the vehicle began to suffer intermittent ignition failure and could not be started on some mornings. On more than one occasion, a mechanic from the service centre of Opposite Party No. 2 attended the vehicle. On 11 November 2016 the problem recurred, the mechanic could not start the car and it was towed to the service centre. The initial explanation was that the battery was defective and required repl