Date of Filling:      30.08.2017

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  18.10.2019

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT: THIRU.  J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.                                 .…. PRESIDENT

                   TMT.      K. PRAMEELA, M.Com.                                         ….. MEMBER-I

                   THIRU.  D.BABU VARADHARAJAN, B.Sc., B.L.                 ..… MEMBER-II

CC.No.37/2017

THIS FRIDAY THE 18^th   DAY OF             OCTOBER 2019

Mr.I.Devanathan,

AL-163, 1^st Street,

12^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai -600 040.                                                                                  …..Complainant.

                                                                //Vs//

1.Mr.Eberhard Kern,

    Managing Director & CEO

    Mercedes – Benz India Private Limited,

    E-3, MIDC, Phase-III,

    Chakan Industrial Area,

    Kuruli & Nihoje, Taluka Khed,

    Pune, Maharashtra - 410 501.

2.Mr.Abdul Qadir A.R.Buhari,

    Managing Director,

    Trans Car India Private Limited,

    Dealer for Mercedes Benz Passenger Cars,

    No.80/81, Ambattur Industrial Estate,

    Ambattur, Chennai - 600 058.                                             …..Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 20.09.2019 in the presence of Mr.S.MuthuKumaravel Counsel for the complainant, Mr.R.Gunasekaran, Counsel for the 1^st opposite party,  Mr.D.Pariventhan, Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and having perusing the document and evidence before this forum and hearing the argument on both sides, this Forum delivered the following.

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.J.JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been preferred by the complainant Under Section 12 of the consumer protection Act-1986 against the opposite parties for seeking a direction to replace the defective product with a new functioning airbag system in the complainant’s C Class AvantGarde CDI 250 Model vehicle No.TN 02 AV 0426 and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and undue distress caused to the complainant and cost.

2.The brief averment in the complaint filed by the complainant is as follows:-

The complainant has purchased C class AvantGarde CDI 250 model vehicle of the Mercedes Benz from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party in the month of August 2012 and its bearing registration No.TN-02-AV-0426. The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party. the complainant had purchased the vehicle based on the assurance of advanced technological engine and the world class safety features given by the 1^st opposite party, that were sold along with the vehicle.  The complainant is a retired Bank Officer and used the car only for long distance drive and therefore it has been driven only for a distance of 30,000 km.  One such trip, the above car showed a warning stating that the run flat warning system was not functioning and therefore the complainant immediately took his car to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party changed the tire sensors and charged a hefty bill.  Within a few days of the car return from the service centre on 11.07.2017 the car showed a warning stating “Restraint System Malfunction Consult Workshop”.  When the complainant immediately took the car back to the dealership and he has informed that the airbag system (SRS control unit) which is most important safety features in case of accidents was malfunctioning and also informed that it would cost approximately Rs.58,000/- to rectify the same.  The complainant was shocked to hear about the defective airbag system though it had not been deployed at any point and therefore ought not to be malfunctioning. In fact it is very clearly a manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  The Airbag system is an important standby safety feature which is essential and mandatory in most countries across the world for providing safety, protection and prevention of grievous injuries in time of accidents. The complainant had sent an email to the customer care of Mercedes Benz on 02.02.2017 stating that the request and the manufacturing defect to be rectified immediately and stating that safety measures ought to be provided with lifetime warranty.  Thereafter on 04.02.2017 the complainant received a reply from the 2^nd opposite party stating that they had not replaced nor rectified anything as there was no confirmation from the complainant.  Subsequently the complainant received a reply from the 1^st opposite party on 15.02.2017 stating that the explanation given by the 2^nd opposite party is sufficient and facts as stated by the 2^nd opposite party were taken blindly and no explanation or grievances provided by the complainant had been considered.  The 1^st opposite party had been negligent in their conduct when the complaint had been made against the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant sent a detailed email on 05.03.2017 and the hard copy of the same on 06.03.2017 to the 1^st opposite party explaining in detail his grievances and the defects faced by him in the product manufactured by the 1^st opposite party sold by the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant received a reply dated 09.03.2017 from the 1^st opposite party stated that the car was outside the warranty period and that there was no malfunctioning in the airbag system but it was only a result of wear and tear. The complainant sent another email dated 21.03.2017 explaining his grievance to the 1^st opposite party but has been left with no other option the complainant approached this forum.

3. The contention of written version of the 1^st opposite party is briefly as follows:-

The complainant purchased his car(C 250 CDI) on August 2012 and the warranty period expired in the year 2015.  There is no dispute that the complainant raised certain issues in the year 2017 which is well beyond the warranty period and also limitation period as well.  Further Mercedes-Benz vehicles are world class cars with a reputation for safety, comfort, quality and engineering precision and are manufactured after great deal of research and development. This complaint is frivolous, speculative and vexatious and is intended to exploit the consumer jurisdiction for making an untenable claim.  It is a matter of record that customer’s vehicle was duly attended whenever any concerns arose without fail. Admittedly, the concerns of the complainant arose when the vehicle was in its 6^th year of use and it is not uncommon that certain parts may fail or deteriorate due to usage or age of vehicle. The opposite parties have attended to all the legitimate concerns of the complainant. The vehicle is out of warranty period and all the repairing cost will be suffered by the complainant himself. The vehicle is in its 6^th year of operation and SRS control Unit malfunctioning is only because of normal wear and tear of the vehicle while considering the age of the vehicle and also explained by the dealer via e-mail dated 4^th February 2017 stating that “we would like to mention that in this matter the operating factor combined with the age of the vehicle certainly influences the life of the components.  Thus the malfunction of the part such as mentioned by your good self may not be seen as premature in nature, considering the age of the vehicle”.  The claim of the complainant is unreasonable and has no rational or legal basis whatsoever.  This complaint is purely speculative and vexatious in nature and hence is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4. The contention of written version of the 2^nd  opposite party is briefly as follows:-

The vehicle was purchased in August 2012.  The 1^st complaint was only made on 30.12.2016, which date is not mentioned in the complaint.  The complaint had been attended to and only the regular charges for labour and part were charged.  Being a premium car the service and repair charges are also on the higher side. The complainant raised the issue warranty given by the manufacturer and also the extended warranties under “Star Care” were over.  Therefore the complainant has to pay for repair works.  The car depreciates due to wear and tear as well as age.  Even the regular service schedule would indicate the regularity on the basis of kilometer run and number of months/years from the date of purchase.  Therefore the complainant cannot rely on kilometers run, to project his case, when the vehicle is more than 4 years old. While is not disputed that air bag system is a safety feature, it is also subject to depreciation over a period of time even if it was not used.  In fact, as far as air bag is concerned, the kilometer run by the car is absolutely an irrelevant factor.  As stated in the 2^nd opposite party’s reply dated 04.02.2017 as there was no confirmation from the complainant, the repair could not be done free of cost.  The 2^nd opposite party sent its estimation to the complainant on 11.01.2017 for Rs.53,360/- to change the said defective party (SRS Air bag).  In any event, the 2^nd opposite party as a dealer can do the repair work only on payment of charges when the warranty period is over. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

5.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 1^st opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked and also adduced oral argument on the side of the complainant and 1^st opposite party.  While so on the side of the 2^nd opposite party though the written version filed, but proof affidavit and written argument not filed and also not adduced oral argument on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

6. At this juncture, the points for determination before this Forum is as follows:-

(1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

(2)Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of new airbag system from the opposite parties?

(3)Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost?

(4)  To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

7. Point No.1 to 3:-

The case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased C class Avant Garde CDI 250 model vehicle of Mercedes Benz bearing Registration No.TN 02 AV 0426 in the months of August 2012 from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant used the car and run about 30,000 km. When the car showed a warning stating that the run flat warning system was not functioning and therefore the complainant immediately took his car to the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defects.  After rectifying the defects on 11.07.2017 the car showed a warning stating “Restraint System Malfunction Consult Workshop”.  When the complainant immediately took the car back up to the 2^nd opposite party and he was informed that the airbag system (SRS control unit) was malfunctioning and also informed that the cost comes to Rs.58,000/- to rectify the same.  There is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and therefore the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects but the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects and committed deficiency in service.

8. The opposite parties contented that the complainant has purchased his car on August 2012 and the warranty period expired in the year 2015.  The complainant raised some issue in the year 2017 which is well beyond the warranty period. The concerns of the complainant arose when the vehicle was in its 6^th year of use and it is not uncommon that certain parts may fail or deteriorate due to usage or age of vehicle. The opposite parties have attended to all the legitimate concerns of the complainant and there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

9. The complainant has purchased C class AvantGarde CDI 250 model vehicle of Mercedes Benz bearing Registration No.TN-02-AV-0426 in the month of August 2012 from the 2^nd opposite party.  Ex.A1 is the copy of Registration Certificate. From the above documents it is clearly seen that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the above said vehicle and the 2^nd opposite party is the dealer from whom the complainant purchased the above said car.

10. The complainant alleged that the complainant used his car about 30,000 km.  The car showed a warning stating that the run flat warning system was not functioning and therefore the complainant immediately took his car to the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defects.  After rectifying the defects on 11.07.2017 the car showed a warning stating “Restraint System Malfunction Consult Workshop”.  When the complainant immediately took his car back up to the 2^nd opposite party and he was informed that the airbag system (SRS control unit) was malfunctioning but the complainant has not filed any documents to show that the air bag system of the complainant’s car was malfunctioning.  On the other hand, the complainant sent an email to the 1^st opposite party stating that the air bag system is not functioning and it is not safe to drive the car without rectifying the defects.  Ex.A2 is the copy of E-mail.  The 1^st opposite party had sent a reply to the complainant on 02.02.2017 stating that we are seeking more details on the reported matter from our dealership and thereafter the 1^st opposite party sent another reply to the complainant dated 04.02.2017 stated as follows:-“we will appreciate that the vehicle is in its sixth year of operation and is well outside the standard warranty period.  We would like to mention that in this matter that operating factor combined with the age of the vehicle certainly influences the life of the components.  Thus the malfunction of the part such as mentioned by your good self may not be seen as premature in nature, considering the age of the vehicle.  In view of the above and in line with the defined guidelines laid by our principals M/s. Mercedes Benz India Private Limited, while requesting for your kind understanding, we regret out inability to replace the SRS control unit on free cost of cost basis, as requested by you”.  Ex.A3 is the reply dated 02.02.2017 and Ex.A4 is the reply dated 04.02.2017.  In Ex.A4 the 1^st opposite party clearly stated that the defects arose outside of the warranty and therefore the 1^st opposite party was unable to replace the SRS control unit on free of cost.

11. The malfunction of Air Bag system occurred during 2017 and the complainant purchased the car during 2012 and therefore the malfunctioning of air bag system after 5 year and 2 months. The 1^st opposite party alleged that the complaint of the complainant arose beyond the warranty period and therefore the opposite party sent reply to the complainant refused to rectify the defect on free of cost.  The 1^st opposite party also filed copy of warranty of the vehicle and the same has been marked as Ex.B4.  The warranty condition stated as follows:

“Vehicles supplied by MB India are warranted to be free from defects in material and workmanship and are cover under this warranty for a period of 24 months commencing from the date of first registration or date of sales invoice/delivery note- whichever comes earlier-without mileage limitation”

12. The complainant’s vehicle registered on 14.08.2012 as registration No.TN 02 AV 0426 and therefore the warranty period closed on 13.08.2014.  The alleged defect of the air bag system in the complainant’s vehicle arose in the month of July 2017 and therefore the alleged defect beyond the warranty period.  Further the complainant has not filed any documents to show there is manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Under these circumstances the complainant is not entitled for any replacement of air bag system on free of cost therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties

Point No.4

In the result this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum of this 18^th October 2019.

      -Sd-                                              -Sd-                                                              -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                  MEMBER-I                                                 PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

List of documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

-Not filed-

      -Sd-                                              -Sd-                                                              -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                  MEMBER-I                                                 PRESIDENT