State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rama Motocorp Private Limited vs M/S Gannayak Cars Private Limited on 14 November, 2025
Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of
CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 29/04/2024
Date of Final Hearing: 15/10/2025
Date of Pronouncement: 14/11/2025
Complaint Case No.-CC/24/02
IN THE MATTER OF :
Rama Motocorp Private Limited,
Having its Registered Office at:
Ground Floor, Rama Port, Main Road, Vyapaar Vihar,
Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) - 495 001
Through its Director, Mr. Nitin Agrawal,
S/o. Shri Rajendra Agarwal ... Complainant.
Through: Shri Harsh Gupta, Advocate
Vs.
1. M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited,
Through Its Director,
Add.: NH6, Ring Road No.1, Tatibandh Square, Raipur,
Dist. Raipur (C.G.) - 492 009 ... Opposite Party No.1.
Through: Shri Abhinay Satyaprakash, Advocate
2. M/s. Mercedes Benz India Private Limited,
Through Its Managing Director,
Add.: E-3, MIDC, Chakan, Phase-III, Chakan Industrial Area,
Kuruli, & Nighoje, Tah.: Khed,
Pune (Maharashtra), India-410 501 ... Opposite Party No.2.
Through: Shri Om Kukreja, Advocate
3. M/s. Michelin India Private Limited,
Through its Director,
Add.: Orchid Business Park, 3rd Floor, Sohna Road, Sector - 48,
Gurugram, Dist. Gurugram (Haryana) - 122 001 ... Opposite Party No.3.
Through: Shri S. Pandya, Advocate
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT IN BOTH CASES: -
Shri Harsh Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Abhinay Satyaprakash, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Shri Om Kukreja, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Shri S. Pandya, Advocate for the opposite party No.3.
ORDER
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This complaint, under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), has been filed by the complainant alleging gross unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and manufacturing defect in the car sold by the opposite parties to the complainant and the defects in the car has not been rectified despite several Partly allowed. Page 1 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 requests, seeking directions to the opposite parties to jointly and severally replace the car bearing registration No.CG 10 BL 3231 with a new car of same make and model or in alternative to refund the price of the car Rs.1,15,64,500/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred) with simple interest @ 18% p.a. from 01.12.2022 till the date of making payment. Apart from that to reimburse the cost of additional tyres Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Ten Thousand) with simple interest @ 18% from the date of purchase till the date of making payment and to bear the cost of new tyres as may be purchased within the warranty period along with payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) towards damages for deficiency in service and physical-mental harassment caused to the complainant with any other relief this Commission deems fit to award in the interest of justice.
2. Very briefly stated the necessary facts for disposal of this complaint, as per averments made in the complaint, are that the complainant is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act 2013 and a consumer as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act and is acting through its Director Mr. Nitin Agrawal authorized vide Board Resolution dated 04.12.2023. The complainant had purchased a car "Mercedes-Benz GLS 400D 4MATIC" bearing registration No.CG 10 BL 3231 Vin No.W1N1679236M012943 and Engine No.65692980245965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'car') for personal use of its Director, which has no direct nexus with profit generation activities of the complainant, from the opposite party No.1's showroom at Raipur by transferring an amount of Rs.1,15,64,500/- to the manufacturer of the car opposite party No.2's bank account against invoice dated 30.11.2022. Booking amount was paid to the opposite party No.1 authorized dealer of the car, who also facilitated the registration and insurance of the car. It is further stated that use of said car by its Director, complainant does not generate any business revenue or profit for the complainant and thus it is a consumer as defined under the Act and as such the instant complainant falls within the purview of the Act. After Partly allowed. Page 2 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 completion of all necessary formalities the said car was registered on 01.12.2022
3. The opposite party No.1 advised to get the first service of the car done at a mileage of 15,000 kms and the complainant promptly got the service done on 26.04.2023 at 16,198 kms. After first service the car at the mileage of 22,780 kms approx. started giving trouble and did not run smoothly and therefore the complainant was forced to get second servicing of the car done before hitting 30,000 kms i.e. way before than the scheduled. During second servicing on 07.06.2023, it came to the complainant's knowledge that the tyres had worn out. Therefore, two tyres of the car had to be replaced by opposite party No.2. In order to find out the reason of early wearing out of tyres the opposite party No.1 asked the opposite party No.3, the manufacturer of the tyres installed in the car to carry out an inspection of tyres and thereafter submit a report. The opposite party No.3 provided a detailed report about the tyres mentioning the symptom as "uneven wear in the tyre thread area" and the apparent cause as "wear pattern on the tyre thread area of the tyre is caused as an evolution of usage combined with static vehicle settings and specifications." After receiving said report from opposite party No.3, the complainant started requesting the opposite party No.1 to resolve the issue, but the complainant's utter shock the opposite party No.1 began avoiding the complainant and did not gave any factual rhyme or reasons and when the complainant demanded a detailed vehicle service history report from the opposite party No.1, it was outrightly rejected which clearly suggests that the opposite party No.1 was trying to conceal shortcomings during the first and second servicing which had eventually lead to uneven wear in the tyres.
4. The complainant was also in talks with the opposite party No.3, the tyre manufacturer to help and resolve the issue, but to no avail. The opposite party No.3 denied manufacturing defect in tyres and suggested that there may be some defect in the vehicle itself. Such tyres have an average ordinary life of around 5 years and more than 60,000 kms but because of Partly allowed. Page 3 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 manufacturing defect in the car and / or tyres, the tyres worn out in first year itself at a distance of mere 22,780 kms. After repeated requests, when the opposite parties failed to resolve the issues and replace the tyres of the said car the complainant had to purchase two tyres manufactured by the opposite party No.3 company from Tyre Centre, Bilaspur for a total price of Rs.1,19,000/- on 04.09.2023, which were fitted by the opposite party No.1 on 20.09.2023, when two tyres of the car were replaced due to uneven wearing out. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to bear the cost of new tyres, as the tyres had worn out again for the second time after a very short run. The opposite party No.1 offered to share 50% cost of the tyres but since there was deficiency in the vehicle, tyres and services provided by the opposite parties, the complainant rejected the offer and requested the opposite party No.1 to bear 100% cost of tyres. The opposite party No.1's such agreement to bear 50% cost of new tyre suggests that there was some kind of manufacturing defect in the car or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
5. In the month of October 2023 again two tyres of the car worn out again and the complainant had to purchase two tyres again and thereafter on 30.12.2023 of different manufacturer Pirelli. The complainant had already sent first legal notice on 21.08.2023 and as a last resort sent second legal notice on 16.12.2023 to all the opposite parties demanding vehicle service history sheet and refund of value of car or replacement of defective vehicle from the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and demanding reimbursement of cost of new tyres from the opposite party No.3, but to no avail. The opposite party No.2 sent a joint reply to both the legal notices on 23.01.2024, delivered on 29.01.2024 and reply of the opposite party No.3 denying any kind of manufacturing defect in tyres was delivered on 26.03.2024 to the complainant's legal counsel.
6. The complainant has incurred an additional cost of Rs.3,10,000/- yet in purchase of new tyres, which clearly shows manufacturing defect in the car Partly allowed. Page 4 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 and / or tyres provided by the opposite parties. The distance and date on which the tyres have been changed are as follows :-
Date Total Distance Covered (kms) No. of tyres changed 27.06.2023 22,780 2 20.09.2023 35,564 2 04.10.2023 36,381 2 30.12.2023 47,583 2 The complainant further averred that the car came with a three-year warranty, which is valid from the date of initial registration and does not have a mileage limit. Similarly, the manufacturer of the tyres fitted in the car, opposite party No.3 gave warranty of five years from the date of purchase against defect in material or workmanship and thus not only the car but also the tyres fitted in the car as well as those purchased later by the complainant are well within the warranty period. It is also stated that after a delay of six months the opposite party No.1 provided a copy of vehicle service history sheet to the complainant on 28.03.2024 and a bare perusal of which clearly establish that the complainant has time and again raised the issue of wearing out of tyres. It is also stated that record of servicing dated 07.06.2023 has been provided separately and the same does not appear cumulative history sheet.
With the above averments alleging unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and manufacturing defect in the car and / or tyres provided by the opposite parties this complaint has been filed seeking reliefs mentioned therein, as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
7. The opposite party No.1 in its written version admitted that they are authorized dealer and service provider of the opposite party No.2 namely Mercedes-Benz cars and the fact that the car was sold to the complainant. Regarding allegations of defects in car it is stated by the opposite party No.1 that it can only be found on the basis of inspection and the opposite party No.1 only being a car dealer cannot be held liable for manufacturing defects in the vehicles sold by them. Such defects are responsibility of the manufactures, who have the requisite control, knowledge and ability to address them. Shifting liability to dealer is both impractical and unjust, given Partly allowed. Page 5 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 their limited role in the production process and the existing warranty protections provided by manufacturers. It is further averred that servicing of the car is required every 15,000 km but the vehicle having being driven around 16,198 km was brought to the service center of the opposite party No.1 on 26.04.2023. No complaints were made by the complainant regarding any driving problems, and no irregularities were found after the first servicing. The concerned vehicle has encountered issues with the original tyres manufactured by the opposite party No.3. The concerned vehicle, having being driven approximately 22,780 kms was brought to the service center of the opposite party No.1 on 07.06.2023 with a complaint that the tyres were worn out. Upon which the opposite party No.1 promptly requested opposite party No.3 to inspect the tyres and provide their response to determine the exact cause of wear. Despite awaiting a response from opposite party No.3, which included an inspection of the two worn-out tyres, the complainant insisted on immediate replacement. To maintain goodwill, opposite party No.1 replaced both tyres free of cost on the same day, 07.06.2023.
8. It is pertinent to note that any defects in the tyres fall under the liability of the manufacturer opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.1 as a car dealer, is not responsible for guarantees or warranties related to the tyres of the vehicle. On 09.06.2023 the opposite party No.3 provided their tyre inspection report stating that wear pattern on thread area of the tyre is caused as an evolution of usage combined with the static vehicle settings and specification and denied the replacement of worn-out tyres with the new one. Requested detailed service history of the concerned vehicle was provided one week late, due to software glitch on Mercedes' portal, which was being rectified by technical experts. Regarding problem resolution the opposite party No.1 continuously made efforts and maintained contact with the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 and persistently requesting a Partly allowed. Page 6 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 final decision, thus the opposite party No.1 as the car dealer fulfilled all necessary obligations.
9. The complainant purchased new tyres from the opposite party No.3 without informing the opposite party No.1 and that goodwill gesture of bearing 50% of the cost of new tyres was denied by the complainant. The act of offering to bear 50% of the cost of the new tyres was made solely as a gesture of goodwill and should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment of any liability or responsibility for the defects in tyres. As per Section 84 read with Section 86 of the Act, service provider who do not exert substantial control over the product's design, testing, manufacturing, packaging, or labeling are not liable. The liability framework for service providers under the Act ensures that they are only held accountable for harm caused by their direct actions or negligence. Therefore, in cases where a vehicle or its tyres have a manufacturing defect, the manufacturer must be held liable, and the dealer, whose duty is confined to selling and servicing the vehicle.
10. With these averments, denying all the adverse allegations against the opposite party No.1 it is prayed that complaint be dismissed against the opposite party No.1. In support of this written version the opposite party No.1 has filed affidavit of its CEO Mr. Nadamuni Ravi, dated 02.04.2025 along with copy of Authority Letter by M/s. Gannayak Cars Pvt. Ltd., performa invoice of replacement of Michelin Tyres, inspection report of two micheliln tyres, service history of the vehicle bearing registration No.CG 10 BL 3231, email correspondences between opposite party No.1 and the complainant and that of correspondences between the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2, between opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.3.
11. The opposite party No.2 in its written version has averred that the complainant is a commercial entity and has purchased the concerned vehicle solely for commercial purpose and shall not be considered as consumer under Partly allowed. Page 7 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 Section 2(7) of the Act. The complainant has not brought anything on record to show that the vehicle was bought exclusively for the personal and family use of the complainant. The complainant is a commercial organization and the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove that the present dispute in this matter is not of a commercial nature. It is further averred that the allegations in this complaint mainly pertain to manufacturing defect in tyres of the concerned vehicle, but tyres installed in the concerned vehicle are manufactured by opposite party No.3 M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. and hence the opposite party No.2 manufacturer of the concerned vehicle is not liable under any circumstances for the allegations raised in the complaint. The tyres of the concerned vehicle are not covered under the warranty provided by the opposite party No.2. Terms and conditions of the warranty provided to the complainant at the time of purchase of the concerned vehicle clearly states that tyres or other wear and tear parts of the vehicle are not covered under the warranty and its warranty shall be provided directly by the respective tyre manufacturer/ suppliers opposite party No.3 herein.
12. The liability of the opposite party No.2 i.e. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., as held in catena of judgements, is limited to the manufacturing defect only, when same is supported by expert evidence, which is not provided by the complainant. Manufacturing defect has been defined by the Hon'ble National Commission as a defect due to which the vehicle cannot function and results in a complete and total breakdown which is not the instant case. As per information received from the authorized dealer, the concerned vehicle has already run more than 35,000 kms by October 2023 and was still being used by the complainant. The service history evidencing the same has already been annexed by the complainant as Annexure C-18. The Act provides a mechanism under Section 38 (2)(c) that the allegations regarding manufacturing defect need to be supported by expert evidence, which is not done in the present case. The complainant has to prove the same by cogent evidence, credible and adequate evidence supported by the opinion of expert Partly allowed. Page 8 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 that the vehicle suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect failing which manufacturer opposite party No.2, cannot be held liable.
13. The manufacturer and authorized dealer of the car have relation in terms of Principal-to-Principal basis and the opposite parties are bound by the same. Clause 11.1 of the dealership agreement envisages that this agreement does not make dealer a general or special agent, partner, joint venturer or employee or any other relationship of trust or confidence. The relationship under this agreement, between the dealer and the company is on Principal-to-Principal basis. It is further averred that as per terms and conditions of warranty, the opposite party No.2 is liable to replace the defective part only, when manufacturing defect is proved and in no scenario liable to replace the vehicle or refund the amount of vehicle. With these averments the opposite party No.2 prays that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from opposite party No.2, hence the complaint be dismissed against it. The opposite party No.2 in support of its written version has filed affidavit of its Manager, Litigation Management Mr. Anirudh Mehrotra, copy of power of attorney in his favour by the opposite party No.2 Company, his affidavit dated 12.03.2025 by way of evidence, counter affidavit dated 05.05.2025, affidavit dated 17.02.2025, copy of warranty leaflet, Annexure OP- 2/2, dealer agreement dated 22.09.2021, Annexure OP-2/3 and copy of relevant part of owner's manual.
14. The opposite party No.3 in its written version denying the allegations made against them in the complaint has averred that the complaint is false and misconceived and hence is liable to be dismissed straightway as has been filed with an oblique motive to cause wrongful gain from the opposite party No.3 without any cause of action against them. The complainant is a legal entity formed under the provisions of Indian Companies Act and the subject vehicle was not purchased for the personal use but for securing commercial gains of the complainant. Hence on this ground itself the complaint deserves outright dismissal. The instant complaint suffers from "suppressio veri and Partly allowed. Page 9 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 suggestion falsi". It is an established principle of law and duly enshrined under Section 83 of the Act also that the manufacturer can be held liable for its product only if some manufacturing defect is shown and proved in the product manufactured by it. In the instant case the complainant has neither shown nor proved any defect either manufacturing or otherwise in the tyres. The complaint is not supported by any documentary evidence, much less report of any technical expert to substantiate the allegations of there being any manufacturing defect in the subject tyres, while on the other hand, the opposite party No.3 had got the subject tyres inspected from a competent technical expert but no manufacturing defect, either as alleged or otherwise, was found in the subject tyres.
15. In technical report dated 09.06.2023, duly shared with the complainant, the issues observed in the subject tyres were not found out to be due to any manufacturing defect but an evolution of usage combined with static vehicle settings and specifications, which means irrespective of driving behaviour, road conditions and vehicle conditions, tyres do wear as an evolution of general usage that is influenced by vehicle specifications like static alignment settings, engine power, transmission 2WD/4WD, vehicle load etc. In fact, in many cases of Mercedes GLS400D i.e. car model of the complainant, rear tyres are worn at an average life of 15,000 - 20,000 kms and in various cases, tyres worn out issue has been witnessed at less than 15,000 distance in well maintained vehicles. This indicates that in a vehicle of this nature with high torque and high load, average life of rear tyres falls within the range of 15,000
- 20,000 kilometers, thus no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 can be alleged.
16. The subsequent tyres, fitted by the opposite party No.1 in the car after removal of originally fitted tyres, alleged to be the products of the opposite party No.3 and the same were purchased by the complainant or otherwise from grey market, even the warranty of said subsequent tyres were never registered with the opposite party No.3. Hence no liability of said subsequent Partly allowed. Page 10 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 tyres can be fastened upon the opposite party No.3. The subject tyres had covered and travelled their ordinary life and were not worn out early as alleged. It is denied that average ordinary life of such tyres is around 5 years and more than 60,000 kms but because of manufacturing defect in the tyres, they worn out in first year itself at a distance of mere 22,780 kms. The opposite party No.3 further states that after the first set of original tyres, which were fitted in the subject vehicle, no information, either of fitting and / or any alleged issues in the same, was ever given to the opposite party No.3 by the complainant and / or other opposite parties. In para-wise reply the opposite party No.3 has denied all the allegations levelled against them and denied their any liability towards to the complainant on the basis of their technical report and terms of warranty provided for the originally fitted tyres and the fact that no information as given for the subsequent tyres and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed against the opposite party No.3. In support of their written version the opposite party No.3 has filed affidavit of Mr. Amardeep Sethi and evidence by of his affidavit dated 07.02.2025 along with copy of Michelin Warranty, Technical Report dated 09.06.2023.
17. Final arguments heard. Record as well as written arguments submitted by the parties perused.
18. Reiterating the averments made in the complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that Mr. Anirudh Mehrotra is not authorized representative of the opposite party No.2 to sing and verify the pleadings and further lead evidence on behalf of the opposite party No.2 as the copy unregistered power of attorney filed by the opposite party No.2 is without any Board Resolution in support of same. Similarly, Mr. Nadamuni Ravi is not duly authorized representative of the opposite party No.1 as he has only filed a letter of authority dated 08.11.2023 without any Board Resolution in support of same. Regarding complainant being a consumer under the Act learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs. Unique Partly allowed. Page 11 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 Shanti Developers and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 26; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harsolia Motors & Ors., (2023) 8 SCC 362 and Hon'ble National Commission in Landmark Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Frostees Export (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., MANU/CF/0559/2020 and argued that the car was purchased by the complainant for personal use of its Director and in such a situation the company is qualified to approach Consumer Commission as a consumer under the Act. He has also argued that if the opposite parties have objection regarding maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the car was purchased for commercial purpose, the onus to prove such objection is upon the opposite parties as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgement Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. & Anr. (2025) 1 SCC 534.
19. Regarding manufacturing defect in the car learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon affidavit and Vehicle Technical Expert Report dated 15.12.2024 of Independent Expert, Mr. Sachin A. Mulge, who was duly appointed by this Commission, prepared after carrying a physical inspection of the car on 12.12.2024 in Raipur in presence of representatives of opposite party Nos.1 & 3. The opinion of the Independent Technical Expert given in his Vehicle Technical Report and affidavit clearly establishes that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle, which originates from the state of production itself and is un-rectifiable. He has referred to the last para at page 1, finding No.2 at page 3, first para at page 2, finding No.3 at page 3 of the report and para 4 of affidavit of Techincal Expert. He has further argued that said report has been prepared by an independent expert who had carried out the inspection of car in presence of representatives of opposite party Nos.1 & 3 and none of the opposite parties has filed any expert report to counter the findings of Mr. Sachin A. Mulge, who has carried out inspections of more than 5 lakhs vehicles yet and has an experience of more than 24 years, which adds to the credibility of his report. Thus, it is evident that the car was sent for maintenance and tyre(s) replacement on multiple occasions to the Partly allowed. Page 12 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 opposite party No.1 and the complainant was in continuous touch with opposite party Nos.1 & 2 for resolution of recurring problem but to no avail, despite sending legal notice, which clearly proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 & 2. On the basis of above arguments, it is prayed that the complaint be allowed with the reliefs sought therein.
20. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 also reiterating the averments in their written version has argued that the vehicle in question has experienced issues pertaining to the original tyres manufactured by the opposite party No.3 and was brought to the service center of the opposite party No.1 in due diligence the adherence to standard protocol, promptly the matter was referred to the opposite party No.3 requesting an inspection of tyres. When the complainant conveyed an urgent need for replacement of tyres, notwithstanding the pending response from the opposite party No.3, the opposite party No.1 despite having no direct liability in the matter, voluntarily replaced both tyres free of cost to the complainant on the same day. The alleged six-month delay in providing the service history of the vehicle is an exaggeration on the part of the complainant as there was an unavoidable delay of only one week due to a technical glitch on the Mercedes postal. There has been no tampering, suppression, or misrepresentation by opposite party No.1 regarding vehicle's service history. The relationship under agreement between the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is on Principal-to-Principal basis. This agreement does not create any contractual relationship between Dealer and Company and thus the actions of opposite party No.2 cannot be attributed to opposite party No.1 and the latter cannot be held liable for the same.
21. As per section 84 read with section 86 of the Act, liability can only be attributed to a service provider or dealer if they have altered, modified, or tampered with the product in a manner that results in harm. The manufacturing defect lies exclusively with the manufacturer, and such Partly allowed. Page 13 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 liability cannot be extended to the dealer or service provider in the absence of direct fault or negligence on their part. The conclusions drawn in the expert report unequivocally indicate that the vehicle in question suffers from an inherent manufacturing defect. The responsibility of rectifying or addressing such fundamental defects rests solely with the manufacturer i.e. the opposite party No.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 in support of his arguments has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ford India Private Limited Vs. M/s. Medical Elaborate Concept Private Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No.41924191/2023, decided on 05.07.2023 and judgement of Hon'ble National Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Harpreet Singh & Anr., Revision Petition No.701 of 2022, decided on 12.09.2024 in which it was held that in case of manufacturing defect, manufacturer alone is liable and dealer is not liable. It is prayed that this complaint be dismissed against the opposite party No.1.
22. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 reiterating the averments made in their written version has argued that the entire contents and all the allegations made in the complaint are denied and the present complaint be dismissed. The complainant being a commercial entity does not fall under the definition of consumer under Section 2(7) of the Act as the complainant has not bought anything on record to show that the vehicle was bought exclusively for the personal and family use of Director of the complainant. In this regard he has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, 1995 (3) SCC 583; Cheema Engineering Services Vs. Rajan Singh (1997) 1 SCC 131, in which it was held that burden to proof purpose of the purchasing goods or availing services is upon buyer of such goods or services. He has also placed reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble National Commission in Suresh Singh and Anr. Vs. Jaycee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Revision Petition No.3215 of 2016, dated 23.08.2018. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further argued that manufacturer is only liable for manufacturing defects and as the allegations Partly allowed. Page 14 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 raised in the complaint mainly pertains to tyres manufactured by the opposite party No.3 M/s. Micheline India Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party No.2 manufacturer of the car is not liable under any circumstances. He has further argued that Hon'ble National Commission in Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Anr., III (2009) CPJ 229 (NC) has defined manufacturing defect as a defect due to which the vehicle cannot function and results in a complete and total breakdown and it was further observed that the vehicle in that case was in running condition and is being used by the complainant on regular basis and it shows that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
23. In the present case also, the vehicle has already run 48,000 kms in just one year despite this extensive usage of luxury vehicle, alleging issue of manufacturing defect in the vehicle is nothing but an attempt to gain undue advantage on the part of the opposite parties. He has further argued that expert evidence is mandatory to prove the manufacturing defect, the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is also on the complainant. But the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof of manufacturing defect in the car and that of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2. The tyres of the concerned vehicle are not covered by the terms and conditions of warranty provided by the opposite party No.2. The warranty for the tyres shall be provided by the respective tyre manufacturer/ suppliers opposite party No.3. The terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty terms are binding on the parties. Relationship between the manufacturer and the authorized dealer / service center is on Principal-to- Principal basis, hence the opposite party No.2 is not liable for the acts and representations of its dealer. In this regard reliance is placed upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Honda Cars India Limited Vs. Sudesh Berry, Civil Appeal No.6802 of 2021, order dated 12.11.2021. He has further argued that in fact no cause of action arises in favour of the complainant against the Partly allowed. Page 15 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 opposite party No.2. Hence this complaint be dismissed against the opposite party No.2.
24 Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 reiterating the averments made in their written version has argued that Mr. Sachin Mulge, an independent technical expert appointed by this Commission vide his technical report dated 13.01.2025 opined that the alleged issues in the tyres were due to rear wheel alignment or geometry of the vehicle, as incorrect alignment can result in uneven load distribution and accelerated wear and said issues were fixed during the production level of the vehicle itself. Since the opposite party Nos. 1 and / or 2 had not addressed and/ or allowed the grievances of the complainant, instant complaint implicating opposite party No.3 falsely was filed by the complainant to cause wrongful gains to itself. As neither there were any issues, either manufacturing or otherwise, in the subject tyres manufactured by the opposite party No.3 nor there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3, hence the present complaint deserves to be dismissed against the opposite party No.3.
25. Having considered the arguments advanced by all parties and minutely going through the record the following issues are before us to be determined for proper adjudication of this case : -
i. Whether the complainant comes under category of 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act ?
ii. Whether there was any manufacturing defect in the car manufactured by the opposite party No.2 or in the tyres fitted therein manufactured by M/s. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party No.3 ?
iii. Any deficiency in service committed by the opposite party No.1 authorized dealer / service center of the car ?
iv. In case the Issue Nos.i, ii & iii / or any one of them are decided in positive, the reliefs?
26. Issue No.i: - In this regard learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant company had purchased the car for personal use of its Director Mr. Nitin Agrawal and there is no close and direct nexus between the said car and ordinary profit generation activities of the Partly allowed. Page 16 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 Complainant and this fact brings the complainant in the category of 'consumer' as defined under the Act. All the opposite parties have objected the status of the complainant as a 'consumer' being a commercial entity on the ground that the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the car was purchased exclusively for personal and family use of its Director and is being used so.
27. Settled principle on this point is that if some goods has been purchased by a person for personal use and has no direct/ indirect nexus to generation of profits, such person is qualified to approach Consumer Commission. In Harsolia Motors (supra)'s judgement Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.39 & 42 has held as under :-
"39.--------. For example, if a manufacturer who is producing product A, for such production he may be required to purchase articles which may be raw material, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose. As against this, if the same manufacturer purchases a refrigerator, television or air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even for his office has no direct or indirect nexus to generate profits, it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for afore- stated reason he is qualified to approach the Consumer Forum under the Act, 1986.
"42. Thus what is finally culled out is that each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances and what is to be examined is whether any activity or transaction is for commercial purpose to generate profits and there cannot be a straight-jacket formula which can be adopted and every case has to be examined on the broad principles which have been laid down by this Court, of which detailed discussion has been made."
Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgement clearly laid down that, facts of each case has to be examined keeping in mind that transaction, in reference to which the claim has been raised, has any close and direct nexus with the profit generating activity. In the facts of the present case the complainant has contended that the car in question was purchased for personal use of its Director and there is no close and direct nexus between the said car and ordinary profit generation activities of the Complainant company. Hon'ble National Commission in Crompton Greaves Limited & Anr. Vs. Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited & Ors., CC No.51 of 2006, decided on 08.7.2016 has held the following:-
Partly allowed. Page 17 of 25
Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 "11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the issue referred to the larger Bench is answered as follows:-
(a) If a car or any other goods are obtained or any services are hired or availed by a company for the use/personal use of its directors or employees, such a transaction does not amount to purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services for a commercial purpose, irrespective of whether the goods or services are used solely for the personal purposes of the directors or employees of the company or they are used primarily for the use of the directors or employees of the company and incidentally for the purposes of the company.
(b) The purchase of a car or any other goods or hiring or availing of services by a company for the purposes of the company amount to purchase for a commercial purpose, even if such a car or other goods or such services are incidentally used by the directors or employees of the company for their personal purposes."
The above principle settled by the Hon'ble National Commission that if a car or any other goods are obtained or any services are hired or availed by a company for the use/personal use of its directors or employees, such a transaction does not amount to purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services for a commercial purpose is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case also.
28. So far as the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the opposite parties that the complainant has failed to prove, by way of any cogent documentary evidence, that the car in question was purchased by the complainant company solely for personal and family use of its Director is concerned, we are surprised as to how it can be proved or what kind of cogent documentary evidence would be sufficient to prove such contention made by the complainant, in fact this burden lies upon the opposite parties to counter the contentions of the complainant or to adduce such evidence which can falsify the contentions of the complainant. Hon'ble Apex Court in Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. (supra) in paragraph No.17 held as under : -
"17. So far as the CA No. 353/2008 is concerned, it appears that---------
--------------. It is trite to say that when a consumer files a complaint alleging defects in the goods purchased by him from the opponent seller, and if the opponent-seller raises an objection with regard to the maintainability of the consumer complaint on the ground that the goods in question were purchased by the complainant-buyer for its commercial purpose, the onus to prove that they were purchased for "commercial Partly allowed. Page 18 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 purpose" and therefore, such goods would fall outside the definition of "consumer" contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, would be on the opponent-seller and not on the complainant-buyer. In the instant case, it has been-------."
(Underlining is ours) Merely raising rote objection by the opposite parties, without any concrete evidence, is not sufficient to prove that the vehicle was neither purchased nor is being used for personal and family use of Director of the complainant company. Therefore, in view of the above discussion we are of the considered view that the complainant company very well comes under the category of 'consumer' of the opposite parties and thus the Issue No.i is decided in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
29. Issue No.ii: - So far as question of manufacturing defects in the original tyres fitted in the car is concerned, upon raising complaints and getting information of the same the opposite party No.3 conducted an inspection of the said tyres and submitted its Tyre Inspection Report dated 09.06.2023, which is an undisputed document, mentioning finding in terms of 'symptoms' to the effect that "uneven wear on tyre tread area" and 'cause' "wear pattern on tyre tread area of the tyre is caused as an evolution of usage combined with static vehicle settings & specifications. To counter the said Tyre Inspection Report, the complainant or any of the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 have not filed any other evidence way of any expert report or otherwise, hence we have no other option but to believe the said Tyre Inspection Report and to conclude that the originally fitted tyres in the said car were not having any manufacturing defect. The above report clearly indicates about faults in usage combined with static vehicle settings & specification.
30. Now coming to allegations of manufacturing defects in the car in question, we find that on the application of the complainant I.A. No.02/2024 for appointment of technical expert for inspection of the vehicle and to submit his expert report, this Commission vide order dated 27.11.2024, appointed Mr. Sachin Mulge, duly Automobile Surveyors, Loss Assessors as Partly allowed. Page 19 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 an expert for inspection of the vehicle and to submit his report. Till that date the matter was being proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party No.2. Later on vide order dated 20.02.2025 the order to proceeding ex-parte against the opposite party No.2 was set aside and the opposite party No.2 was permitted to file their written version in the matter within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 submitted objection on the Expert Report submitted by Mr. Sachin Mulge. On the objection of the opposite party No.2 arguments of all parties were heard along with the final arguments and is being decided herewith this order.
31. The opposite party No.2 has mainly challenged the report of the expert Mr. Sachin Mulge that he is only an independent surveyor and that services of a surveyor are ordinarily engaged for insurance related assessments. He does not possess the requisite technical qualifications or expertise to accurately ascertain or determine the mechanical condition of the vehicle. He is not an authorized government body to perform technical inspections on automobiles. The appropriate laboratory is defined under Section 2(2) of the Act as a laboratory recognized by the Central or State Government and only such agencies can be appointed to conduct the analysis or test. A list of such agencies are : -
• Automotive Research Association of India, Pune (ARAI) • The Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune (CIRT) • The International Center for Automotive Technology, Manesar (ICAT) and, • Other such agencies as may be specified by the Central Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of provisions of the Act and these rules.
The opposite party No.2 has no objection to the vehicle in question being examined by a Government authorized laboratory and the inspection held on 12.12.2024 cannot be relied upon hence denied by the opposite party No.2.
32. Having considered the arguments of all parties we do not find any substance on the objection of the opposite party No.2 raised towards the Partly allowed. Page 20 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 Vehicle Technical Expert Report dated 15.12.2024 of Mr. Sachin Mulge, Automobile Surveyors, Loss Assessors and Valuer. The opposite party No.2 has mainly raised objection towards qualification, competency, expertise and experience of the Technical Expert. In the application moved by the complainant for appointment of Mr. Sachin Mulge for inspection of the vehicle his qualification is mentioned as License Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Government Approved Valuer, License No.68213 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, having experience of more than 25 years. In the Vehicle Technical Expert Report also Mr. Sachin Mulge has mentioned himself as Automobile Surveyors, Loss Assessors and Valuer, Licence No.SLA/68213. In the affidavit filed along with and in support of the report Mr. Sachin Mulge has stated in paragraph Nos.2 & 3 that he has a Diploma in Automobile Engineering and is an Automotive Engineer/ Insurance Surveyor/ Bank Valuer by profession and has experience of 24 years in Automobile industry and have carried out more than 5,00,000 vehicle valuations till date. In view of this statement in affidavit about qualification and experience of Mr. Sachin Mulge, we are of the considered view that objections regarding competency, qualification and experience of Mr. Sachin Mulge as an Automobile Engineer and expert of Automobiles has no substance. The opposite party No.2 had an option to cross-examine Mr. Sachin Mulge on his Vehicle Technical Expert Report and Affidavit, but nothing of that sort has been done. Accordingly, the objections of the opposite party No.2 regarding the Vehicle Technical Expert Report are rejected.
33. Mr. Sachin Mulge, an independent Vehicle Technical Expert, appointed by this Commission after inspection of the car in question on 12.12.2024 in presence of representatives from the M/s. Mercedes-Benz Motor Team and Michelin Tyre Team for a comprehensive assessment, has opined that the rear tyre exhibited recuring inner tyre wear and the "root cause is likely an issue with the vehicle's rear wheel alignment or geometry".
Partly allowed. Page 21 of 25
Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of
CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025
"The magnitude of the observed deviations (camber error of +1.44˚ and toe-in error of approximately -0.10˚) strongly underscores the necessity for immediate recalibration to align these parameters with the manufacture's specifications". The findings are:-
1. Alignment deviation beyond OEM specifications has caused recurring tyre wear.
2. The defect originates from production - line settings, making it unrectifiable through standard servicing or maintenance.
3. Consistent tyre wear patterns, confirm a systemic defect, independent of operational or external factors.
Summary of the Report :
1. The vehicle under inspection, a Mercedes Benz GLS400d (Registration No.CG-10-
BL-3231), has exhibited persistent inner-edge tyre wear on both rear tyres. Despite six tyre replacements, the issue persists, which points to a systemic defect originating from the vehicle's production setup. The root cause is attributed to incorrect camber and toe-in alignment, compounded by the monocoque chassis design, which restricts adjustments to these angles. This structural limitation prevents effective correction through standard repair procedures.
2. The report confirms that the defect compromises vehicle safety, performance, and tyre longevity. The findings support the need for immediate remedial measures from the manufacturer or dealership.
The above Vehicle Technical Expert Report clearly shows that alignment deviation beyond OEM specifications has caused recurring tyre wear, which originates from production line settings and is un-rectifiable through standard servicing or maintenance. The Expert Mr. Sachin Mulge in his affidavit at para No.4 has stated that : -
"I have come to a finding that there is a manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle bearing No.CG 10 BL 3231 after carrying out a physical inspection of the subject vehicle and going through the Complaint, annexures, purchase invoices and the Job Card provided to me by the Complainant Company."
In view of the above opinion of the expert there appears no could of any doubt that the vehicle in question has such defect which cannot be rectified through standard servicing or maintenance and which can be termed as manufacturing defect. But at the same time under the head Overall Alignment Observation it was opined by the expert that the deviations observed in the vehicle strongly underscores the necessity for immediate recalibration to align the parameters with the manufacturer's specifications.
34. Therefore, with the foregoing discussion, on the basis of findings and observations in the Vehicle Technical Expert Report we are of the considered view that the vehicle in question has some manufacturing defect in as much as its alignment of wheels and production setup is concerned i.e. incorrect Partly allowed. Page 22 of 25 Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 camber and toe-in alignment, compounded by the monocoque chassis design for which the manufacturer and the seller i.e. the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 both are jointly and severally responsible to rectify the defect and are liable to make good the losses suffered by the complainant. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 is relied upon judgement of Hon'ble National Commission in Harpreet Singh (supra) and referred to paragraph No.12 which reads as under : -
"12. State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with its findings. We are also in agreement with the findings of State Commission that it being a case of manufacturing defect, manufacturer alone is liable and dealer is not liable. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, both the Revision Petition Nos.701 and 737 of 2022 are dismissed."
The above judgement of the Hon'ble National Commission is on the facts and events occurred before commencement of present Act of 2019 as in that case original complaint was filed in the year 2005, which travelled up to the Hon'ble National Commission and decided by the above order, in which the provisions envisaged under Section 86 of the Act of 2019 was not available hence the above judgement is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Section 86 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is as under : -
"86. A product seller who is not a product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if--
(a) he has exercised substantial control over the designing, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labelling of a product that caused harm; or
(b) he has altered or modified the product and such alteration or modification was the substantial factor in causing the harm; or
(c) he has made an express warranty of a product independent of any express warranty made by a manufacturer and such product failed to conform to the express warranty made by the product seller which caused the harm; or
(d) the product has been sold by him and the identity of product manufacturer of such product is not known, or if known, the service of notice or process or warrant cannot be effected on him or he is not subject to the law which is in force in India or the order, if any, passed or to be passed cannot be enforced against him; or
(e) he failed to exercise reasonable care in assembling, inspecting or maintaining such product or he did not pass on the warnings or instructions of the product manufacturer regarding the dangers involved or proper usage of the product while selling such product and such failure was the proximate cause of the harm."Partly allowed. Page 23 of 25
Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025 In view of the above we are of the view that the seller has role in execution of warranty provided by the manufacturer of the car and thus is jointly and severally liable for the manufacturing defects found in the vehicle in question. Thus, the Issue No.ii is decided in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party Nos 1 & 2 i.e. the authorized dealer and manufacturer respectively.
35. So far as the allegation of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party No.1 authorized dealer is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the vehicle has some manufacturing defects as discussed above the authorized dealer opposite party No.1 failed to provide prompt service in compliance of warranty cover provided on the vehicle, which is evidenced from the service history of the vehicle in question and thus has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Thus, the issue No.iii is decided in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party No.1.
36. Issue No.iv : - In view of the results of Issue Nos.i, ii & iii as above, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, we are of the considered view that as the vehicle has defects pertaining to its alignment of wheels and production setup i.e. incorrect camber and toe-in alignment, compounded by the monocoque chassis design and the vehicle has already run about 48,000 kms yet, at the place of directing for replacement of the car, an opportunity should be given to the opposite party No.1 & opposite party No.2 to jointly and severally rectify such defects along with direction for replacement of four tyres with new one. They are also liable to reimburse the cost of additional tyres Rs.3,10,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.15,000/-, expenses and fee of Vehicle Technical Expert and compensation for mental and physical agony to the complainant. This complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.3.
Partly allowed. Page 24 of 25
Complaint Nos.: Rama Motocorp Private Limited Date of
CC/24/02 Vs. Pronouncement:
M/s. Gannayak Cars Private Limited & Ors. 14/11/2025
37. With the foregoing discussion, this complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 directing them to jointly and severally : -
1. Rectify the defects pointed out by the Vehicle Technical Expert in his report dated 15.12.2024 in the Car No.CG-10-BL-3231, to the satisfaction of the complainant along with replacement of the tyres currently fitted in the car with new one and to hand over the same to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
or In case of failure to comply with the above directions at Sr. No.1 within 45 days to replace the Car No.CG-10-BL-3231, within next 30 days, with new one of the same make and model or in alternative refund the entire purchase price of the car Rs.1,15,64,500/- (Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred) with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of making payment.
2. Reimburse the cost of additional tyres purchased by the complainant Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Ten Thousand) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of tax invoices of the said tyres.
3. Reimburse the entire fee of the Vehicle Technical Expert Mr. Sachin Mulge Rs.29,500/- and his air fares Rs.10,250/- plus Rs.14,372/- (Bills of which are available on record) i.e. total Rs.54,122/- (Fifty Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty Two), which has already been paid by the complainant.
4. Pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) towards physical and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
5. Pay Rs.15,000/- (Fifty Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from this order.
6. With these directions this complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party Nos.1 & 2. The opposite party No.3 is absolved from any liability and this complaint is dismissed against opposite party No.3 accordingly.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
President Member
/11/2025 11/2025
Pronounced On: 14th November 2025
Partly allowed. Page 25 of 25