Haryana

Panchkula

CC/201/2018

ASHA BAINS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

21 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	201 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	02.11.2018
Date of Decision	:	21.08.2023

 

 

Asha Bains w/o Harbhajan Singh Bains, resident of E-2/11, SF, DLF Valley, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3 MIDC Phase-3, Kurli and Nighoje, Tal Khed, Pune-410501, Maharashtra.

2.     Joshi Auto Zone, Mercedes Benz Dealer 84, Industrial Area Phase-2, Chandigarh.

3.     Mercedes Dealer Punjab Motors, C-19, Industrial Area Phase 1, Panchkula-160055, Haryana.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Harbhajan Singh Bains, Authorised representative/ husband of the complainant.  

                        Sh.Abhishek Sindwani, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 03.01.2019.

                        Defence of OP No.3 struck of vide order dated                                        17.07.2019.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.The brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant being impressed qua the superior and high quality of Mercedes cars, as claimed by OPs, purchased a C-220 Mercedes Benz car from OP No.2 on 14.12.2012; she had paid the double price of the said car in comparison to the price of other cars of the same size of other companies; she herself had driven the said car and utilized the same by covering a distance of 22000km. It is averred that she was dis-satisfied qua the quality of inside door handle as well as the tyres of the said car as the inside door handle of driver side had broken in just 22000km of driving. It is alleged that the handle cannot be misused as the same has inbuilt mechanism by which it cannot be pulled or stretched beyond a certain limitation and that the handle is not a running part and there cannot be any wear and tear of the said part. It is alleged that the handle had a manufacturing defects in it and in this regard, the OP No.2 was approached for carrying out the necessary repairs but the complainant was informed that an expenses of Rs.85,000/- excluding taxes and labour charges would be incurred on the repair of the handle. On this, the OPs were told that the complainant had paid very high price for the vehicle keeping in view the superior quality of its components but OPs did not accept her request to replace the handle free of cost.

                Similarly, it was found that the rubber of the tyres of the car has deteriorated without the tread of the tyres being worn out and in running of only 22000 km. The OP no.2 again refused to compensate the complainant stating that it was out of warranty. It is alleged that quality of tyres was very poor. Since it was dangerous to drive the car with such tyres, the complainant got the deteriorated two tyres replaced at a cost of Rs.24,000/-. Due to the act and conduct of Ops, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice the Op No.1 appeared through counsel and filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that the consumer commission at Panchkula has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the OP No.1 has its registered office in the State of Maharashtra; the OP No.1 is not a necessary party for the adjudication of the present complaint as OP no.1 being the manufacturer, has no role in the present dispute.

                On merits, it is stated that the OP No.1, Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited is a company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of luxury automobiles/cars and is considered one of the world leaders in the Industry. It is a world renowned brand and has been set up by a German Multinational Company, namely, Daimler AG. It is stated that the automobiles, manufactured by the OP No.1 are known for their safety, comfort, quality and engineering precision. The Mercedes-Benz vehicles are manufactured, after great deal of research and development. The cars manufactured by the OP No.1 undergo stringent quality checks at every stage.  It is admitted that the car was purchased by the complainant on 14.12.2012 from its authorized dealer. It is stated that the complainant has utilized the said vehicle for 6 years by running it for about 22000km without any complaint/problem. It is submitted that the complainant had accepted the warranty terms and condition, which was given for 36 months irrespective mileage limitations. It is submitted that the said warranty covered the repair/replacement of defective parts. Beyond servicing and repairing of defective parts of the vehicle, the OP no.1 did not undertake to replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price. It is submitted that the vehicle in question being purchased in 2012 is out-side the purview of the guarantee. It is submitted that the complainant has alleged the technical issue of damage/breakdown of the door handle in the vehicle in question. The said damage/breakdown has resulted due to constant mishandling of the door handle. It is submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and in the absence of any manufacturing defect, only the dealer is liable. It is also submitted that the tyres of the car in question has deteriorated due to wear and tear and the same is not covered under warranty terms. It is submitted that the tyres were purchased by OP No.1 from the tyres manufacturer and thus, the OP no.1 is not liable. The OP No.1 sells the vehicle to its authorized dealer on principal to principal basis and thus, the manufacturer is not liable for any lapses and deficiencies on the part of the dealer; hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

                Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP No.2; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.2, it was proceeded ex-parte by the Commission vide its order dated 03.01.2019.

                Upon notice, the OP No.3 has appeared through Sh.Rajesh Gupta, Authorized Representative to contest the complaint; but he did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities including the last one; as such, its defence was struck off by the Commission, vide its order dated 17.07.2019. 

3.The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Annexure R-1/A along with Annexure R-1/1 to R-1/4 and closed the evidence.            

4.We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for OP No.1, minutely and carefully.

5.The Authorised representative of the complainant, during arguments, reiterating the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A), has contended that the inside door handle on driver side  of the car in question had become defective just in a driving of 22000km. It is contended that there is/was manufacturing defect in the handle of the car. It is further contended that the tyres of the car were also having manufacturing defects as the same had got deteriorated within the usage of car for a distance of 22000km and thus, prayer for acceptance of the complaint, was made by grating the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.On the other hand, the OP No.1 has contested the complaint by raising the preliminary objections that the complaint is maintainable before the consumer Commission at Panchkula as its registered office is situated in the State of Maharashtra.

                This objection, being devoid of any merits in it, is liable to be rejected in view of the unrebutted contentions of the complainant that she had been getting the services of the car in question from OP No.3, who is authorized dealer of OP No.1(manufacturer) and whose office is situated at Panchkula within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The OP No.3 i.e. authorized dealer of OP No.1 at Panchkula has not controverted/ rebutted the contentions of the complainant, qua obtaining  its services, by filing its reply/written statement as its defence was struck off by the Commission vide  order dated 17.07.2019.

7.The next objection taken by OP No.1 is that it sells the vehicle to its authorized dealer i.e. OP No.2 on Principal to Principal basis and hence, no liability can be fastened upon it qua any lapses and deficiency on the part of its dealer. The learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1, during arguments, vehemently contended that OP No.1 being manufacturer has no role to play in the present dispute. It is contended that, in the absence of any manufacturing defects, no liability can be imposed on the manufacturer. Reliance has been placed the following case laws:-

a.     Tata Motors Vs. Hind Motors & P.K. Marwaha, order dated 24.05.2010.

b.       Hind Motors Vs. K.K.Kalsi-order dated 24.05.2010.

c.       Hind Motors Vs. Balwinder Singh, order daed 24.05.2010.

d.       Hind Motors Vs. Bhupinder Singh order dated 24.05.2010.

e.       Maruti Vs. Hasmukh Lal, III (2009) CPJ 229(NC).

                The above objection is not tenable in view of the fact that the complainant has alleged the manufacturing defect in the handle as well as tyres of the car in question. The law laid down vide case laws as relied upon by the learned counsel for the OPNo.1 is not disputed but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case being distinguishable of facts.

                The last objection, which has been taken by learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1, is that the complainant has not placed any expert report on record as required vide Section 13(1)(c ) of the CP Act, 1986/Section 38(1)(c ) 2019 in support of her contentions that there were manufacturing defects in the car in question. Reliance has been placed upon the case law titled as Classsic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr.., I(2010) CPJ 235(NC).

                The above objection is also rejected because the OP no.1 has not disputed about the existence of the defects in the handle of the car in question.

                On merits, the learned counsel has argued that warranty was provided for 36 months from the date of the purchase of the vehicle without mileage limitations. It is contended that the complainant has raised the issues qua the defects in the handle as well as tyres after the expiry of warranty period and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

8.Before looking into the rival contentions as raised by the authorized representative of the complainant and the learned counsel for OP No.1, it is relevant to mention that the OP no.1 has claimed itself to be a leading automobile manufacturer, who is known for safety, comfort, quality and engineers precision. It has also claimed that the car manufactured by it undergoes strict quality check at every stage. The complainant placing reliance upon the superior quality of the parts of Mercedes Benz car as claimed by OPs had purchased the same by paying a higher price for it in comparison to the price of the other cars of the other Automobile companies.

9.No doubt, the warranty period had already expired before the raising of the issue by the complainants qua the defects in the handle of the car in question. It is also correct that there was no mileage limitations, as per warranty conditions, qua the usage of the car. However, at the same time, this fact is also of utmost significance, which cannot be overlooked, that the vehicle was driven merely for a distance of 22000km in a period of about 6 years. On average, the usages of car per day, was about 10kilomerter per day, which was extremely on lower side; as such, the car was not used on extensive scale.

10.Pertinently, the OP no.1 (manufacturer) has not specifically denied the manufacturing defect in the handle of the car. It has only stated that the defects in the handle had resulted on account of its mishandling. Pertinently, it has not got examined the handle of the car from its experts. In view of the consistent, specific and categorical assertions of the complainant qua manufacturing defects in the handle of the car, a heavy duty was cast upon the Ops to get same was tested from its engineers.

11.It is correct that handle of the car is not a running part of the engine. It is also correct that handle of the car cannot be misused or mishandled as it has its own inbuilt mechanism, which do not permit it to be stretched or pulled beyond a certain point or limitation; thus, we agree with the contentions of the complainant that there was/is a manufacturing defect in the handle of the car.

12.Now, coming to the issue of deterioration of the tyres as alleged by the complainant, it may be mentioned here that the tyres had been utilized for 6 years by running the car over a distance of 22000km; thus, the deterioration in the tyres had resulted due to the tear and wear.  Moreover, the manufacturer of tyres, who is a necessary party, has not been impleaded. Therefore, the grievance of the complainant qua the payment of compensation for the expenses incurred on the replacement of the tyres is not maintainable.

13.The OP No.2 has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.01.2019 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

14.The OP No.3 has failed to file the written statement/reply, despite having taken sufficient time and resultantly, its defence was struck off vide our order dated 17.07.2019 and thus, there is no rebuttal and controversial to the contentions of the complainant

15.As a result of discussion made above, the Ops No.1 & 2 have been found deficient, while rendering services to the complainant, for which they are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief. The complaint is dismissed qua OP No.3 as no deficiency alleged against it.

16.In relief, the complainant has prayed for replacement of the handle assembly of the car along with compensation amounting to Rs.24,000/-, which he had incurred on the replacement of tyres.

17.As discussed, the prayer of the complainant qua replacement of the tyres has been declined. However, the complainant has been found entitled to the replacement of handle assembly of the car along with compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation charges.

18.Resultantly, the present complaint is partly allowed by directing the Ops No.1 &  2 to replace the inside handle assembly of driver side of the car, free of cost,  with new one within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. After the receipt of the letter/email etc. from OPs No.1 & 2, the complainant shall take her vehicle to the premises of OP No.2 for the replacement of the inside handle assembly of driver side of the car with new as directed above.  The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

19. The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.    

Announced on:21.08.2023

 

 

 

Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav     Dr.Sushma Garg           Satpal         

                 Member                           Member              President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                 Satpal,                              

        President