Haryana

StateCommission

CC/54/2014

Nagendra Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mercedes Benz India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

23 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             Complaint Case No.54 of 2014

                                                                Date of Institution:28.05.2014

                                                                    Date of decision:23.02.2017

 

Nagender Singh son of Sh. Tara Chand, SCF No.88, Green Square Market, Hisar, Haryana.

        …Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., through its M.D., Registered office at E-3, MIDC Chakan, Phase-III, Kuruli & Nighoje, Taluka Khed, Pune-410501 (India). 

2.      Barkeley Motors Ltd., through its M.D, 118-19 KM Stone, G.T. Road, NH-1, Karnal-132001 (Haryana).

3.      Michelin India Tyres Private Ltd., through its Managing Director, Registered Office at 7^th Floor, the Pinnacle Clardiges, Business Tower, Shooting Range Road, Surajkund, Faridabad-121001 (Haryana)                                                                                                                           …opposite parties

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:     Mr.Rose Gupta, Advocate counsel for complainant.

                   Mr. S.S. Bawa, Advocate counsel for OP No.1.

                   Mr. Om Parkash representative of OP No.2.

                   Mr. Hitender Kansal, Advocate counsel for OP No.3.

 

                                                ORDER

 

MRS. URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER

 

1. Complainant- Nagender Singh, purchased one Mercedes–Benz Car Model No.C-220 Avant Grade from OP No.1- Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., through OP No.2 Barkeley Motors Ltd. on 04.12.02013 by paying a sum of Rs.30,66,154/-. He got the car registered on 30.12.2013 by paying a sum of Rs.3,14,307/-.  Another sum of Rs.94,846/- was paid by him towards insurance premium to Bajaj Allianze General Insurance company – valid from 04.12.2013 to 03.12.2014.

 

2. Three tyres of the car got burst within a week from its purchase due to manufacturing defect in the car, as alleged by the complainant and same were replaced by OP No.2 on 12.12.2013. Thereafter, on 06.03.2014, another tyre of the car also got burst, but OPs did not replace the same on the plea that the complainant shall have to bear 50% cost of the i.e. Rs.40,000/- approximately. Since, the complainant did not agree to the offer, he approached the District Forum praying that the OPs be directed to take back the car and refund the sum of Rs.30,66,950/- cost of the car, alongwith Rs.3,14,307/- registration fees and road tax, and also to pay a sum of Rs.94,846/- paid by him to the insurance company, along with interest @24% per annum on these three amounts w.e.f. 04.12.2013 till the final realization, besides compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs alongwith Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

3. OP-1 in its reply pleaded, that the complainant was only  concerned with the tyres which were outsourced from a reputed tyre manufacturer/supplier, namely M/s Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. and as per the warranty terms, the complainant was only entitled for warranty offered by the tyre manufacturer/supplier. The damage to the tyres and rims were caused by external impact and the 100% cost of three tyres was already borne as a gesture of goodwill. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and on that basis it prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Taking the same plea further, OP No.3 in its separate reply also pleaded that upon receipt of complaint regarding the tyre in question, OP No.3 had immediately sent his trained technical expert to inspect the tyre. Since, the damage to the tyre was not a result of any manufacturing defect in the car, but was only an accidental one. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. 

 

4. OP-2 in its reply pleaded that the tyres fitted in the vehicle were of international quality and the damage was assessed by the expert, who found the same due to external impact. Such damage was neither covered in the warranty conditions of the vehicle nor covered by the tyre manufacturer. Even then, OP No.2 had replaced three tyres free of cost by way of goodwill gesture from the seller to the purchaser. Further, the damage to the tyres so occurred was a clear result of bad driving and mis-handling of the vehicle, e.g. rash driving on rough roads etc. Therefore, there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. 

 

5. In support of his complaint, the complainant has submitted his own affidavit alongwith the vouchers of purchase, registration and the insurance of the car and a copy of the legal notice dated 29.11.2016 (Exbt. C-18) served by him through his counsel. Apart from this no document by way of evidence or affidavit from any expert has been filed to substantiate his allegation that the car was having some manufacturing defect, much less, specifying the actual manufacturing defect alleged by him.  

 

6. In order to corroborate the pleas raised by the OPs in their replies, they have produced evidence by way of expert opinion of engineer,  terms and conditions contained in the Warranty issued by the Michelin  India as well as insurance company. 

 

7. We have thoroughly gone through the record, especially the documentary evidence produced by the parties. After hearing their learned counsel at length, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has miserably failed to produce on record any evidence whatsoever regarding the manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. His entire emphasis was on the amount spent by him on purchasing the car, its registration and its insurance. Since, first three tyres were replaced by the OPs without any cost, the complainant expected the fourth tyre also to be replaced without any cost, even though the same got burst after the period of three months. He has produced number of emails sent by him to OP No.1 regarding the reports of tyre bursting etc., but not a single copy of the email to OP No.2. In order to strengthen his claim for the replacement of the car itself, he has alleged in the complaint that he was scared of driving the vehicle and was traveling in the taxi since 29.11.2016 as the vehicle in question was lying parked in his house. These allegations do not inspire confidence much less substantiate the principal allegation of the manufacturing defect in the car.

 

8. On the other hand, the OPs have successfully proved that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and the tyre bursting was due to external impact and the rough road driving, as opined by the experts. Moreover, the claim of the complainant has also been rightly refuted by pleading the terms and conditions of the warranty issued by M/s Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. They have also drawn our attention to the flowing two orders passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, which directly land support their stand i.e. without an cogent evidence a conclusion regarding manufacturing defect in a vehicle can not be arrieved at by the Fora under the Consumer Protect Act:- 

 

1. Vinoo Bhagat Vs General Motors and Anr.  (NCDRC 5: [2003] NCDRC 5), First Appeal No.150 of 1998, dated 30.01.2003 and

 

2. M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs M/s Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. -  NCDRC 72: [2007] NCDRC 72, Original Petition No.9 of 2006, decided on 17.09.2007.

 

We are bound by the law as laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid precedents.

9. Consequently, in view of this factual and legal position, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

February, 23^rd, 2017             Urvashi Agnihotri                   R.K. Bishnoi

                                                Member                        Judicial Member

                                                Addl. Bench                 Addl. Bench

R.K.