State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Shailesh Khatri vs Auto Hanger India Pvt Ltd on 8 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Consumer Complaint No. CC/16/377
Mr. Shailesh Khatri
residing at - Flat No.1004,
Happy Home Complex,
Tower-1, Chikuwadi,
Borivali (West),
Mumbai - 400 092. ...... Complainant
Versus
1. Auto Hangar India Pvt. Ltd.
The Dealers for Mercedes-Benz Vehicle,
Having its Regd. Office at - 35,
Saki Vihar Road, Saki Naka,
S.O. Andheri (E),
Mumbai, India - 400 072.
2. Managing Director of Auto Hangar India Pvt. Ltd.
The Dealers for Mercedes-Benz Vehicle,
Having its Regd. Office at - 35,
Saki Vihar Road, Saki Naka,
S.O. Andheri (E),
Mumbai, India - 400 072.
3. Mr. Rolend Folger,
The Managing Director & CEO
Mercedes-Benz India Ltd.,
CC/16/377 Page 2 of 19
E-3, Kuruli & Nighoje Village,
Phase-3, Chakan, Pune - 410501. ........ Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Presiding Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member
PRESENT:
For the Complainant : Advocate Ravindra Sawant
For Opposite Party No.1 & 2 : Vertias Legal
For Opposite Party No.3 : Advocate Digambar R. Thakare
JUDGMENT
(Date: 08-12-2025)
Per: Hon'ble Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member
1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/377/2016 is filed under S.12 & Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. (The 'C.P. Act' for short) by the complainant against opposite parties.
2. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against opponent No.1 to 3. The reliefs sought that, Replace the vehicle with new vehicle or return the price/charges paid while purchasing the car or return the price/charges paid i.e. Rs. 38, 74,493/- while purchasing the car and including all require taxes paid by the complainant and compensation for financial loss/injury suffered due to gross negligence of Opp. Party no. 1 to 3 in sum of Rs. 25.00.000/- with 24% interest.
NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 3 of 19 CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
3. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased vehicle Mercedes Benz having Car Model No. C220CDI, Chassis No. WDD2050026L001162, Engine No. 65192132598138 on 30th June 2015 for Ex-Showroom Price Rs. 38, 74,493/-from Opposite party no. 1, the Dealer company & OP No. 2 is Director of the company of Auto Hangar India Pvt. Ltd.
4. The complainant above named stated that after the completion of running 2867 KM of the said Vehicle creating noise in steering wheel and also noise was existing in the door, therefore, Complainant has made complaint to Opp. Party no. 1, the Dealer Company & Opp. Party no. 2, the Director of the said company on 10th October 2015, accordingly, the Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 resolved the issue of Steering Wheel noise within 15 days but the door noise was remained the same and the Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 failed to resolve the said defect. Therefore, the Complainant has made another complaint on 27th November 2015 to Opp. Party no. 1, the dealer company after the completion of running 3981 KM of the said vehicle, at that time Air Conditioning was not working and previous door noise was continuing. Thereafter, Opp. Party no. 1, the Dealer Company & Opp. Party no. 2 resolved the defect of door noise in four days and AC also repaired by the Opp. Party no. 1, the Dealer Company in six days which was not actually resolved. After taking the custody of the said vehicle another problem was disclosed to the Complainant regarding shock absorber on 2nd December 2015 and the same fact was informed to Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 by the Complainant, but the concerned part was not available with Opp. Party no. 1, the Dealer company, thereafter NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 4 of 19 four days the Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 had informed to the Complainant that the concerned part will be available to them by end of the month, therefore, the Complainant wrote to Opp. Party no. 1 & 3 on 10th December 2015 and after this the concerned part suddenly became available with Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 and Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 informed the Complainant that the car is ready means not at the end of the month of December, this creates serious doubt about customer care services of Party no. 1, hence, the Complainant was shocked and surprised about unfair trade practices of the Opp. Party no. 1 i.e. reputed dealer company. However, the vehicle is repaired by Opp. Party no.1 in 18 days. Thereafter, Opp. Party no.1 & 2 have collected the car on 22nd December 2015 for repair of AC which was not resolved. That Opp. Party no.1, the Dealer Company delivered the said vehicle on 26th December 2015.
5. Complainant stated that, on 30th December 2015 Opp. Party no. 1 again collected the car of the Complainant for repairing of Air Conditioning and it was repaired by Opp. Party no. 1 after 22 days and delivered to the Complainant on 20th January 2016. Thereafter, the Complainant again observed and informed to Opp. Party no.1 & 2 that there was leakage of coolant in the said vehicle on 22nd January 2016, therefore, Opp. Party no. 1 again collected for repair on 23rd and on 27th the repair work was carried out.
6. The Complainant stated that he has serious doubt that the vehicle sold to him was defective with intent to earn means profit which known as unfair trade practice to achieve wrongful gain and wrongful loss to other. Therefore complaint filed the said complaint with the following grievances against Opp. Party no. 1 to 3.
NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 5 of 19
a) The Complainant's vehicle remained in workshop of Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 more than 65 days for repairs work.
b) The car was collected by Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 for multiple times for the same problems.
c) The mechanics of the Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 did not find the problems initially.
d) The new problems are continuously arriving day by day.
e) Every time car sent to work shop of Opp. Party no. 1 with full tank of fuel but while returning to the Complainant with half and almost empty fuel tank.
f) There was no justification from the part of Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 why the car was in their custody for long period.
g) There is other issue of the vehicle is that the electronic door gets locked and do not open immediately and it takes at least 5 minutes to open after repeated trying is very serious. It has happened thrice, means new problem is arrived before previous problem resolved. The audio system did not switch off while driving, and for that the complainant has to restart the vehicle for smooth functioning. For the above grievances the Complainant is hereby claim the following reliefs against Opp. Party no. 1, 2 & 3
i) Replace the vehicle with new vehicle. Or NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 6 of 19
ii) Return the price paid i.e. Rs. 38.74.493/- while purchasing the car and including all require taxes paid by the complainant.
iii) Compensation for financial loss/injury suffered due to gross negligence of Opp. Party no. 1 to 3 in sum of Rs. 25.00.000 with 24% interest.
iv) The legal proceeding charges of Rs. 77,500/- to Opp. Party no. 1 to 3.
v) Any other and further relief may be granted in the favour of the complainant in nature of change of circumstances.
6. The complainant has filed copy of the letters of the communication with the opponents, evidence affidavit to support their version.
7. Upon admission of the complaint, notice was issued to opposite parties No.1 to 3. They appeared through counsel and filed their Written Version with documents; the pleadings of both sides have been taken on record.
CONTENTION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY No.1 & 2
8. In defence, Opposite Party No.1 & 2 raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act. That the Hon'ble Commission does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute against Opposite Party 1 and 2 as there has been no unfair trade practice by the Opposite Part 1 & 2 as envisaged under the Act.
NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 7 of 19
9. Opposite Party No.1 submitted that he is only a vendor of Mercedes Benz India Limited and the Opposite Party No 2 is the Managing Director of the Opposite Party No. 1 and as such are not involved in any aspects of manufacturing of the car which is the subject matter of the present dispute. Opposite Part No. 1 is only concerned with the sale and post-sale service of the car manufactured by Mercedes Benz India Limited.
10. Opposite Party No.1 & 2 stated that the present complaint filed is a gross abuse of the process of law as the Complainant has filed the present complaint in the guise of a consumer issue when there have been no unfair trade practices by either Opposite Part No. 1 and 2. In fact the Opposite Party No. 1 has on all occasions done all things in their power to address the issues faced by the Complainant. That the Complainant has in an attempt to mislead this commission has failed to bring to light various facts that have transpired including, but not limited to the fact that the Opposite Party No. 1 has extended the warranty period on account of the issues faced by the Complainant and that the Opposite Party No. I have carried out almost all the repair works to address the issues faced by the Complainant without charging him for the same.
11. Further opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 state that they received a complaint from the Complainant on October 10, 2015 on account of noise coming from the steering wheel and noise coming from the doors of the car. In view of the same the Opposite No. 1 requested the Complainant to bring the car to the work shop where their technical team could look into the matter and resolve the same. Accordingly when the car was brought to the workshop, the NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 8 of 19 Opposite Party No. 1 ran the necessary diagnostic tests to identify why the Complainant was facing the issues. After running the necessary tests as per the standard procedure the Opposite Party No. 1 found that there was some noise coming from the steering shaft and accordingly replaced the same. Additionally the Opposite Party No. 1 also replaced the tape on the doors. After carrying out the necessary service the Opposite Party No. 1 re-ran the tests to ensure that the Complainant would not have any further issues with respect to the said vehicle and found that the issues which had been complained of have been duly resolved. As the issues had been resolved the Complainant's car was returned to him on October 24, 2016. Opposite Party No. 1 incurred labour costs and cost of parts which had to be replaced they did not charge the Complainant for the same. Thereafter on November 27, 2015 they received another complaint, issues relating to the air conditioning system and that the issue with respect to the noise from the door had returned. In view of the complaint received the Opposite Party No. 1 requested that the car be brought in for service so that the issues faced could be resolved. On this occasion also the Opposite Party No. 1 replaced the seal frame of the doors to resolve the issue of noise coming from the doors. With regard to the issues relating to the air-conditioning the Opposite Party No. 1 updated the software for the air conditioning control. After having carried out the necessary repairs and software update the Opposite Party No. I ran its usual tests to ensure that there were no further problems persisting in the car and to ensure that the complaint received has been duly resolved. At the time of running these tests the Opposite Party No.1 noticed that there were some issue with the shock NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 9 of 19 absorbers, but that all other issues had been resolved. On having noticed the issue of shock absorbers the Opposite Party No. 1 informed the Complainant of the same. At this time the Opposite Party No. 1 also informed the Complainant that the required part to rectify the issue of the shock absorber was not available and that it may take a few weeks to get the necessary part. It just so happened that the part which was required was received by the Opposite Party No. 1 much sooner than anticipated and they were able to carry out the necessary repairs much earlier than initially anticipated. they have carried out the repairs and replaced parts for free at their own expense.
12. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 stated that unfortunately the issue of the Air conditioning system returned and the Complainant brought the car back for service on December 30, 2016. On this occasion when the Opposite Party No. I ran its diagnostic tests they noticed that the air condition compressor had malfunctioned due to an electric fault, which was not the issue when the car was brought in on the earlier occasion. The Opposite Party on noticing this issue replaced the Air-conditioning compressor and resolved the issue and returned the car to the Complainant. It may be noted here that on this occasion also the Opposite Party No. 1 did not charge the Complainant for any of the parts that were replaced to resolve the issue.
13. Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 stated that the vehicle sold to the Complainant had not any defect or that a defective vehicle was sold to the Complainant to earn a profit as alleged. That the vehicles NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 10 of 19 sold by them are world-class vehicles with a reputation of safety, comfort, quality and engineering precision.
14. further he stated that reason why the car was at the workshop for so many days is that they perform very stringent diagnostic tests of the cars when they are brought in and prior to being sent back to the customer to ensure that the issues for which the car is brought is properly addressed and rectified. Additionally, with respect to the Complainant's car some of the work that had to be undertaken like changing of the compressor for the air conditioning system, replacing of shock absorbers etc., are time consuming in nature.
15. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 stated that each and every occasion addressed all the issues raised by the Complainant, they have also extended the warranty of the Complainant by 3 months and provided one additional free service to the Complainant. In addition the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 have not charged a single farthing for the parts that were replaced and the repairs that were carried out.
16. The Opposite Party No. 1 stated that all the submissions made by the Complainant are wrong and denied. The Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought whatsoever and is not entitled to claim and/or recover any amount including damages from the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 in view of what is enumerated hereinabove. In view thereof, it is submitted that the Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sough whatsoever and the NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 11 of 19 Complaint ought to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 with compensatory costs.
CONTENTION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY No.3
17. In defence, Opposite Party No.3 a raised preliminary objection that he is the Managing Director of Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited has been unnecessarily dragged into this Complaint. Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited was set up in India by a German multinational "Daimler AG', the world leader in automobile. The cars manufactured by Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited are world-class cars with reputation for safety, comfort, quality and engineering precision. Further, this O.P. has exported a good part of the cars manufactured in India and earned foreign exchange for the country.
18. Further, Opposite Party No.3 submitted that the warranty provided for the said vehicle is for 4 (3+1 year extended warranty) years commencing from the date of first registration or date of sales invoice/delivery note i.e.,30th June, 2015 whichever occurs earlier without mileage limitation. The cars manufactured by this OP. No.3 have been duly approved by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), an approved laboratory recognized under the Consumer Protection Act. It is a matter of record that, customer's vehicle was duly attended whenever any concerns arose without fail. It is clearly explained in Warranty Terms & Conditions that the vehicle is warranted to be free from defects in material and workmanship and is covered under the warranty. This warranty is limited to either repair of goods supplied or replacement of parts NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 12 of 19 which the manufacturer recognizes as defective. Beyond servicing and/or repairing defective parts in the vehicle, manufacturer does not undertake to replace the vehicle or to refund the purchase price and/or reimburse the purchaser towards any consequential loss or damages in respect of the vehicle.
19. Opposite Party No.3 submitted that OP No.1 have attended to the concerns of Complainant such as; noise from the steering wheel/door, air conditioning related issues and leakage in coolant in the course of usage; 'free of charge' in fulfilment of obligations under warranty.
20. Opposite Party No.3 further submitted that the relationship of the Company (O.P No.3) with Authorized Dealer (O.P No. 1) is on principal-to- principal basis. While the Company sells vehicles in bulk to authorized dealers, authorized dealers in turn affect retail sale to the end customers. Authorized dealers are responsible for retail sale and after sale service of vehicles. O.P. No.1 is the authorized dealer in Mumbai. He is responsible for sale and after sale service of vehicles. The relationship between the Company and authorized dealers is on Principal to Principal basis. Admittedly, the Complainant purchased his Mercedes-Benz C-220 CDI from O.P.NO.1 on 30th June 2015 and that concerns of Complainant are operational in nature. The Complainant's car has clocked an odometer reading as under.
Date Km reading
10.10.2015 2867
30.12.2015 4652
23.04.2016 5902
NAC+RRP
CC/16/377 Page 13 of 19
08.06.2016 7034
20.09.2016 8233
21. Thus, it is clear that subject vehicle was in regular use. Further it is a matter of record that Complainant's vehicle was duly attended whenever any concern arose. Further, a trade-in offer was also being discussed between the Complainant and O.P No. 1. O.P. No. 1 was helping the Complainant in arranging for the technical evaluation of the vehicle and the trade in value of the vehicle Also further, all the concerns of Complainant were attended free of charge under warranty. However, the Complainant has filed the consumer complaint. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that consumer complaint of the Complainant does not have any basis whatsoever.
22. In view of the above, the question of compensation or return of the amount as prayed for does not arise. This clearly establishes the fact that the Complaint is purely speculative and vexatious in nature and hence is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
23. Heard the learned advocates for the parties at length; perused the complaint with annexures, the Written Version of Opposite parties No.1 to 3, the affidavits of evidence of the complainant and Opposite Parties and the documents placed on record; upon a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings, materials and submissions available, the following points arise for our determination and are answered as set out hereinafter.
NAC+RRP
CC/16/377 Page 14 of 19
Sr. Points Findings
No.
1 Whether this commission having Affirmative
power to entertain this complaint?
2 Whether Opposite Party 1 to 3 are Affirmative guilty of deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice in relation to the selling of defective vehicle?
3 What order? As per final Order As to point no.1
24. A consumer invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission can seek such reliefs as he considers appropriate. A consumer can pray for refund of the money with interest and compensation. If a consumer prays for refund of the amount, without an alternative prayer, the Commission will recognize such a right and grant it, of course subject to the merits of the case. If a consumer seeks alternative reliefs, the Commission will consider the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case and will pass appropriate orders as justice demands.
25. In this present case, complainant prayed to return the price paid i.e. Rs. 38,74,493/- while purchasing the car and including all require taxes paid by the complainant as well as Compensation for financial loss/injury suffered due to gross negligence of Opp. Party no. 1 to 3 in sum of Rs. 25.00.000/- with 24% interest. In view of our finding given as to have point No.1 in affirmative, it has NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 15 of 19 become clear that, in this case, this commission having power to entertain this complaint.
As to Point No.2
26. We may hasten to clarify that the power to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in service is within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission. Under Section 18 read with Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, if the Commission is satisfied that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to, return to the complainant the price or as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant. 'Deficiency' is defined under Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986, to include any shortcoming or inadequacy in performance which has been undertaken by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise relating to any service. It is clear from the statutory position that the Commission is empowered to direct refund of the price or the charges paid by the consumer.
27. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines "unfair trade practice" as any trade practice that employs unfair or deceptive methods to promote the sale, use, or supply of goods or services. This definition is outlined in Section 2(1)(r) of the Act. The "manufacturing defect" is much more than an ordinary defect which can be cured by replacing the defective part. "Manufacturing defect" is fundamental basic defect which creeps while manufacturing machinery. To prove such a defect, opinion of an Expert is necessary which is not forthcoming in the present case.
NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 16 of 19
28. In the above background, it is worth to mention that the provisions of the Sec.38 (1)(c) of C. P. Act though stipulates that, if the complaint alleges defect in goods, the same shall be referred for analysis to the Expert. However, it is the pre-condition that, the defect should be such that, in the opinion of the Commission, the same cannot be determined without proper analysis, then only it shall be referred to Expert.
29. In the present case, when the Car purchased by the Complainant undisputedly shown the defects right from its purchase, in such circumstances, the standard of proof, which is required in the consumer cases does not require any expert opinion to arrive to the conclusion that the car having some defect. A person who expends Rs.38.74.493/- for the purchase of Car, at least he can expect that the same should be ironically, work properly for some years without any trouble. Thus, the finding of the Commission as to the fact that the complaint has not produced any expert evidence to establish the defect is not according to the law.
30. In this present case, after the perusal of record, this commission observed that, after the completion of running of 2867 KM of the said Vehicle creating noise in steering wheel and also noise was existing in the door, therefore, Complainant has made complaint to Opp. Party no. 1, the Dealer Company & Opp. Party no. 2, the Director of the said company on 10th October 2015, accordingly, the Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 resolved the issue of Steering Wheel noise within 15 days but the door noise was remained the NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 17 of 19 same and the Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 failed to resolve the said defect. Therefore, the Complainant has made another complaint on 27th November 2015 to Opp. Party no. 1, the dealer company after the completion of running 3981 KM of the said vehicle, at that time Air Conditioning was not working and previous door noise was continuing. Thereafter, Opp. Party no. 1, the Dealer Company & Opp. Party no. 2 resolved the defect of door noise in four days and AC also repaired by the Opp. Party no. 1, the Dealer Company in six days which was not actually resolved. After taking the custody of the said vehicle another problem was disclosed to the Complainant regarding shock absorber on 2nd December 2015 and the same fact was informed to Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 by the Complainant, but the concerned part was not available with Opp. Party no. 1, the Dealer company, thereafter four days the Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 had informed to the Complainant that the concerned part will be available to them by end of the month, therefore, the Complainant wrote to Opp. Party no. 1 & 3 on 10th December 2015 and after this the concerned part suddenly became available with Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 and Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 informed the Complainant that the car is ready means not at the end of the month of December, this creates serious doubt about customer care services of Party no. 1, In view of our finding given as to have point No.2 in Affirmative, it has become clear that, in this case Opponent NO.1 to 3 has done deficiency in service as well as unfair Trade practice.
As to point no.3
31. In view of our findings as to point no.1 & 2 in Affirmative, it is clear that the opponent No.1 to 3 has committed any deficiency in NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 18 of 19 service as well as unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Therefore, this commission came to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 30.06.2015 for ex showroom price of Rs. 38.74.493/-. The complainant approached OP-1 for resolving the issue regarding the vehicle i.e. creating noise in steeling wheel as well as in the Door on 10.10.2015, which is about four months from the purchase date, and at that time, the vehicle had covered 2867 km. Accordingly, we hold that OP-1 to OP-3 are jointly and severally liable, and are directed to pay the sum of Rs. 38.74.493./- with interest at 10% per annum within 30 days from the date of this order. The complainant is directed to return the vehicle to OP-1. OP-1 will bear the cost of transportation of the vehicle from the location of complaint. OP-1 to OP-3 shall comply with this order within 30 days of this order, failing which the amount payable at the end of 30 days shall carry interest at 15% per annum till the date of payment. It is directed to OP-1 to OP-3 are jointly and severally to pay the sum of Rs. 50.000/-for physically and mentally harassment and to pay the sum of Rs.25000/- cost of legal proceedings. As such, the complaint will have to be partly allowed against the Opponent no.1 to 3 in above terms. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The Complaint is partly allowed against Opponent no.1 to 3.
NAC+RRP CC/16/377 Page 19 of 19
2. OP-1 to OP-3 jointly and severally are directed to pay the sum of Rs. 38,74,493/- with interest at 10% per annum within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The complainant is directed to return the vehicle to OP-1.
4. OP-1 will bear the cost of transportation of the vehicle from the location of complaint.
5. OP-1 to OP-3 shall comply with this order within 30 days of this order, failing which the amount payable at the end of 30 days shall carry interest at 15% per annum till the date of payment.
6. It is directed to OP-1 to OP-3 are jointly and severally to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/-for physically and mentally harassment and to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/- cost of legal proceedings.
7. Copy of this judgment be furnished free of cost to both the parties.
[Ms. Poonam Maharshi] Presiding Member [Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan] Member NAC+RRP