Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This complaint is filed by one Sri Devendra Surana alleging manufacturing defect and poor after-sales service in respect of a car manufactured by the OP No. 1.

In short, case of the Complainant is that, he purchased one BMW Car from the OPs at a cost of Rs. 29,85,000/- on 31-07-2013.  The car was under warranty for 2 years. It is alleged that, within 3 months of its use, air bulging was detected in respect of two tyres. It was also found that there was fault with the steering wheel of the subject car.  Therefore, the said car was taken to the service centre of the OP No. 4 for due servicing.  However, despite servicing of the said car, the problems were not solved. So, the Complainant lodged official complaint with the OPs.  However, since such endeavour did not yield any positive result, legal notice was served upon the OPs.  Since that too did not cure the situation, the complaint was filed as a last resort.

Counter case of the OP Nos. 1&2 is that, air bulging of the tyres was a user induced issue and there was no grave issue with respect to the steering of the said vehicle.  The issue of pealed leather of steering wheel was addressed and the steering wheel leather was replaced free of cost.

By submitting its WV, OP No. 3 submitted that nowhere in the petition of complaint, the Complainant made any allegation against this OP.  It is further submitted that, this OP, having sold the car to the Complainant, was supposed to provide after-sales service in respect of the subject car.  However, the Complainant never brought the car to it after purchasing the same on 31-07-2013. 

The moot point for determination is whether the Complainant deserves any relief, as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

The case was duly contested by the OP Nos. 1 to 3, on whose behalf their respective Ld. Advocates submitted at length.  Ld. Advocate for the Complainant also submitted extensively in the matter.  We have gone through the material on record carefully.

The main grievance of the Complainant is that the steering wheel of the car is not working properly and further that two tyres of the said car developed air bulging. 

As regards the first complaint, it appears from the Lawyer’s notice dated 08-03-2014 that the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant admitted that the steering issue was resolved on 21-01-2014.  There is nothing to show that thereafter, the steering developed any further problem. 

However, it seems that the issue of air bulging of two tyres of the subject car still remains unresolved.  In this regard, the OPs disowned any liability towards the Complainant stating that it was not the result of any sort of manufacturing defect but they, attributed it to external impact. 

Significantly, it transpires from the ‘Tyre Report’ itself that air bulging was found in the Front RH tyre and Rear LH Tyre.  On the other hand, no such job card is furnished on record wherefrom it could be ascertained that such air bulging developed owing to wrong handling of the car in question.  It also appears that there was no visible sign of any sort of damage to the said car which could still give some impetus to the theory floated by the OPs that such defect was the result of so-called external impact.

Since tyres were duly covered under the warranty and given that, allegation of negligent/mishandling of the car by the Complainant remains unproven, in our considered opinion, it was obligatory on the part of the OPs to replace the defective tyres forthwith. 

Be it mentioned here that bulging tyre is considered a serious safety risk. If the tyre bursts at speed, the driver can lose control of the vehicle, potentially resulting in an accident.  It is indeed sad to note that despite being fully aware of such possibility, the OPs tried hard to sidestep their obligations.  Needless to say, it was a glaring instance of deficiency in service on their part.

However, on a reference to the Agreement executed between the BMW India Pvt. Ltd. (OP No. 2) and OSL Prestige Pvt. Ltd. (OP No. 4), we find that, it was a Principal to Principal relationship and not Principal and Agent relationship.  Accordingly, it appears that the OP Nos. 1 to 3 has no liability towards the Complainant. 

Considering all aspects, we are inclined to allow this complaint.  Having said that, we would like to make it clear that since the allegation of ‘manufacturing defect’ of the car is not proven through an expert, question of replacement of the car in question does not arise at all.

The complaint, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The complaint is allowed in part ex parte against the OP No. 4 with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- and dismissed on contest against the OP Nos. 1 to 3.  OP No. 4 shall, within 40 days hence, replace the defective tyres with defect free new tyres and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for the harassment meted out to the Complainant, i.d., the aforesaid awarded sum (Rs. 50,000/-) shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from this day till religious compliance of this order.