STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

S.P.Singh son of S.Pritam Singh resident of 748, Phase-III B, Mohali.

                                                … Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.     Joshi Automobiles , Ram Darbar, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

2.     Mercedes-Benz India Private Ltd., E-3, MIDC, Chakan Phase-III, Chankan Industrial Area, Kuruli and Nighoje, Tal: Khed Pune-410501, India.

                                …. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,       MEMBER

Present:  

Sh.Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for the complainant

                Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh.M.S.Pandit, Advocate alongwith Sh.S.S.Bawa, Advocate for OP No.2.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one Mercedes from the Opposite Parties on 08.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.50 lacs. According to the complainant, he spent such a huge amount for a Mercedes product, which is known for its quality and reality worldwide.  It was stated that on 02.06.2010, the complainant alongwith his family was going from Chandigarh to Kasauli, HP at about 4.30 a.m. and when he was in the vicinity of Jangeshu, the said car while negotiating a sharp left bend, at nominal speed, due to sudden torsion and shearing in the right side Tie Rod of the suspension and steering system, it collapsed under the normal usage and force, thus leading to a complete loss of frontal steering properties, which caused the car to strike against an embankment (Pullia) on the said road which covered a bridge. This  occurrence manifested the inherent quality defects in the suspension and steering system of the car more specifically the right side tie rod.  It was further stated that the vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.1 and since then it was parked over there.  The complainant found that the tie rod end had broken and metal was in two colours.  The matter was reported to the Opposite Parties through e-mails but to no effect. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were ready to repair the vehicle but the complainant did not want to get the vehicle repaired because he had no longer trust, in the same (vehicle). When the  grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint  under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only),  directing the Opposite Parties to pay the price of the vehicle besides a sum of Rs.20 lacs as compensation, interest etc.

2.                    In the written reply, filed by Opposite Party No.1,  it was admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle, in question.   It was stated that it was a case of an accident, which occurred, when the vehicle driven by the complainant hit the boulder on the road resulting into the breaking down of the tie rod end of the right wheel. It was further stated that Mr.Praful Padgaonkar, Technical Expert, inspected the vehicle at the workshop of