State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Vijay Prabhakarrao Dhere Thrgh His ... vs M S B U Bhandari Motors Pvt Ltd on 6 April, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Consumer Complaint No. CC/14/203
Shri. Vijay Prakashrao Dhere,
Age: 45 years, Occupation: Business
R/o. House No.10, S. No.105/3
Ghule Vasti, Manjri Bk.
Tal. Haveli, Pune 412 307
Through his Power of Attorney holder
Shri. Sudhakar Vasudeo Velenkar
Age: 75 years, Occupation: Social Worker
Of Grahak Hitvardhini Sarvajanik Sanstha
R/o. B-7, Shivsagar Phase I,
18/6A, Vadgaon (Bk) Manibaug
Pune - 411 051. ............ Complainant
Versus
1) M/s B. U. Bhandari Motors Pvt. Ltd.
101, Baner, Mumbai Bangaloru Highway
Pune 411 045
Through its Directors/Managing Director
Shri. Chandravadan Bhandari. ..... Opposite Party
CC/14/203 Page 2 of 16
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Presiding Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member
APPEARANCE:
For the Complainant: Advocate Shubham H. Misar
For Opposite Party: Advocate Vertas Legal
JUDGMENT
(Date: 06-04-2026)
Per: Hon'ble Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan, Member.
1. The present Consumer Complaint No. CC/203/2014 is filed by the complainant against opponent. It is the case of the complainant that, this complaint is re-filed after withdrawing the earlier on the same subject matter.
2. The Complainant submitted that in earlier consumer complaint CC/390/2013 had submitted Miscellaneous Application, praying that the Commission may pass an order to submit the vehicle for inspection and report to ARAI, Pune. But the Opponent raised preliminary objection of pecuniary jurisdiction and Commission dismissed the complaint on the point of jurisdiction.
3. The Complainant submitted that he showed his readiness to withdraw the complaint with permission to file a fresh complaint which was not granted. The Complainant had no choice but to NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 3 of 16 withdraw the complaint and therefore the complaint was withdrawn. and filed this complaint before this Commission.
4. Fact of the case of the complainant that he booked a Mercedes Benz car, model E 250 CDI, with the Opponent, at Pune, in April 2010. Since there was a group of cars booked at the same time, the delivery of the car was assured on or about 9th October 2010. Accordingly, the Complainant got the delivery of the car, on 12th October, 2010. The "Star Ease Service Package Agreement"
was executed on 11th October, 2010 with Opponent. The agreement remains in force up to 10th October, 2013 or 60,000 kms. Running whichever is earlier.
5. The Complainant submitted that he paid consideration of Rs.46,03,434/- In the month of July 2011, the said car was repaired for partonic system and the noise from roof of the car. The noise from the roof was a repetitive complaint. The running of the car, then was 8047 kms. On 28.07.2011, the car was repaired again for some minor defects. Then similar repairs were carried out again and again.
6. The Complainant submitted that the vehicle was leaking profusely in every rainy season. Although the Opponent stated that it was a problem in the roof, the Complainants stated that the vehicle was leaking to such an extent that the water from inside the vehicle had to be mopped up manually even after moderate rains. Being thoroughly disappointed with the after sales service and the repairs carried out, from time to time, by the Opponent.
NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 4 of 16
7. The Complainant submitted that the notice was sent as the car was not repaired to the satisfaction of the Complainant after lodging the same with the Opponent, in their workshop at Baner, on 07.06.2013. The vehicle is with the Opponent as on the date of filing of this Complaint. The opponents arranged a meeting with their technical staff on 21st June 2013 and requested the Complainant to take delivery of the repaired vehicle by their letter dated 26th June 2013. The Complainant also received e-mail wherein the extension of warranty period for six months was offered. The Opponents again requested the Complainant to take the delivery of the vehicle by their letter dated 10th July, 2013.
8. The Complainant submitted that he, sent notice through Grahak Hitvardhini, to the Opponent on dated 20.06.2013 to start arbitration proceedings regarding the car is defective beyond repairs and merits replacement by a new car as well as whether the dealer was justified in charging for repairs, carried out within the warranty period. The Opponent sent a reply notice on dated 07.08.2013 and denied to invoke arbitration as per clause 12(a) of the agreement and the compensation claimed for nonuse of the vehicle is refused. Thus, the Opponent is denying that the vehicle is beyond repairs and also refusing to replace the same with new car.
9. The Complainant stated that the said vehicle is required to be inspected and examined by an expert, one such expert is Automative Research Association of India, situated at Pune. The said Institute, being a Central Government organization, requires NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 5 of 16 specific order from the judicial forum to carry out such inspection and examination of the vehicle and submit its report.
10. The Complainant stated that he is ready to bear the cost of such inspection and examination of the vehicle by ARAI. The state Commission may give appropriate orders in this regard. Therefore, he prayed to the state Commission may order to send the car to ARAI, Pune, for inspection and examination and give the report if there are defects beyond repairs in the Body of the vehicle. A separate miscellaneous application is also submitted with this complaint for the same. The Opponent may please be ordered to replace the defective car with new car and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for not being able to use the car during repairing time taken by the Opponent.
11. The complainant has filed evidence affidavit to support his version. Upon admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the Opponent. He appeared through counsel and filed his Written Version with documents; the pleadings of both sides have been taken on record.
CONTENTION OF THE OPPONENT
12. In defence, Opponent submitted that, the complaint as framed and filed is misconceived and untenable in law and as such deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
13. Opponent mentioned that the Complaint proceeds on the erroneous assumption that an authorized dealer can be held liable for alleged manufacturing defects in a vehicle manufactured by the NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 6 of 16 manufacturer. As a dealer who is not liable for alleged manufacturing defects, no relief can be granted against the Opposite Party for alleged manufacturing defects.
14. The manufacturer, who is not made party to this Complaint, is a necessary party in whose absence no order can be passed in this Complaint. Hence, the Complaint ought to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs.
15. Opponent mentioned that the Complaint is not maintainable in law, as the Complainant had previously instituted a complaint before this Commission which was unconditionally withdrawn without leave/ liberty to file a fresh complaint. This is admitted by the Complainant in the Complaint. This Complaint is thus clearly an attempt at forum shopping. This Complaint, which arises out of the same cause of action, is therefore barred by law.
16. The Opponent is an authorized dealer of Mercedes Benz passenger vehicles and does not have any role whatsoever in the design, engineering, manufacturing or quality control of the said Vehicle. Any allegation of inherent of manufacturing defect is therefore legally unsustainable as the manufacturer has not been impleaded, despite being a necessary party.
17. It is a settled principle that where a proceeding is withdrawn without liberty to institute a fresh proceeding, a subsequent proceeding on the same cause of action is not maintainable.
18. Adv. For Opponent relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 7 of 16 Appellate Tribunal, M.P Gwalior & Ors. [(1987) 1 SCC 5] held that withdrawal or abandonment of a petition under Article 226/227 without permission to file fresh petition thereunder would bar such a petition in the High Court involving the same subject matter. The principal underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") is that when a plaintiff once institutes a suit in a court and thereby avails of a remedy given to him under law, he cannot be permitted to institute a fresh suit of by withdrawing it without the permission of the court to file a fresh suit. The principal of 'invito beneficium non datur applies, which means that the law confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not desire.
19. Similarly, in Upadhyay & Co. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1999) 1 SCC 811 held that the principle of public policy of prohibition of fresh suit, contained in Onder XXIII Rule 1(4) of the CPC, after once withdrawing from a suit in respect of the same subject matter without obtaining permission.
20. In Masumi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. 12018 SCC On Line Bom 105067, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that where a party withdraws an earlier appeal without obtaining liberty to institute fresh proceedings against the same impugned order, a subsequent appeal challenging that very order is not maintainable. The Court held that the principle embodied in Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC operates as a rule of public policy to prevent abuse of judicial process by repeated litigation on the same cause of action. The Court further clarified that once a litigant abandons a remedy by withdrawing NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 8 of 16 proceedings without liberty to file afresh, the litigant is deemed to have relinquished that remedy and cannot revive it through a subsequent proceeding. Applying the said principle, the Court dismissed the later appeals as not maintainable. The ratio squarely applies in the present case inasmuch as the opposing party, having earlier withdrawn the proceedings challenging the impugned action without liberty to institute fresh proceedings, cannot now seek to reagitate the same challenge through the present proceedings. In the absence of any evidence establishing a manufacturing defect, the allegation that the said Vehicle suffers from inherent defects is entirely unsubstantiated and cannot form the basis for granting relief.
21. In Hindustan Motors Lid & Anr. vs. N. Siva Kumar & Anr. [(2000) 10 SCC 654) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a dealer cannot automatically be held responsible for manufacturing defects when the vehicle has been manufactured by another entity. Where allegations concern manufacturing defects, the manufacturer is a necessary party to the proceedings. The Hon'ble NCDRC has repeatedly held that disputes concerning inherent defects in vehicles must necessarily involve the manufacturer.
22. Adv. For Opponent stated that despite alleging manufacturing defects, the Complainant has failed to implead the manufacturer as a party. Even in Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi [2022 SCC On Line SC 1307], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a suit is liable to fail where necessary parties whose rights are directly affected by the decree have not been impleaded, since no effective decree can be passed NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 9 of 16 in their absence. The principle laid down therein squarely applies to the present case, where the Complainant has failed to implead parties whose rights and obligations are integral to the adjudication of the dispute, rendering the proceedings defective for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Complaint therefore suffers from non-joinder of a necessary party and cannot be adjudicated in the absence of the manufacturer.
23. Adv. For Opponent stated that he is not the manufacturer of the said Vehicle but is only the dealer of the same. Further, the Opponent has repaired and rectified all the problems /issues faces by the Complainant regarding the said Vehicle after stringent quality tests. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, since the Complainant has failed to prove a defect to warrant replacement of the said Vehicle, the Complaint ought to be dismissed with costs. In the light of the aforesaid, no legal costs, other further reliefs ought not to be granted to the Complainant.
24. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties at length; perused the complaint with annexures, the Written Version of Opponent, the Affidavits of evidence, of the complainant and Opponent and the documents and the citations placed on record; upon a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings, materials and submissions available, The Commission identifies two "threshold" legal issues that must be addressed before looking into the technical merits of the car's defects. The following points arise for our determination and are answered as set out hereinafter.
NAC+RRP
CC/14/203 Page 10 of 16
Sr. Points Findings
No.
1 Whether this case is Maintainable Affirmative
Regarding as Withdrawal of Previous
Complaint without "liberty" to file a fresh? 2 Whether replacement of vehicle can be Negative granted in the absence of manufacturer as a party?
3 Whether the Complainant is entitled to the Affirmative reliefs of repair and compensation?
4 What order? As per final Order REASONS As to point no.1
25. The Commission has carefully examined the Opponent's contention that the present complaint is barred under the principle of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure-1908, which stipulates that if a suit is withdrawn without seeking specific "liberty" or permission to file afresh, the litigant is precluded from instituting a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. The Opponent relied on the ratio in Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the Complainant's withdrawal of the earlier complaint (CC/390/2013) acts as a legal embargo against the current proceedings. However, we find this technical objection unsustainable in the specific context of Consumer Law.
NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 11 of 16
26. This commission perused the records; it indicates that the previous complaint was not withdrawn due to a lack of merit or a voluntary abandonment of the claim. Rather, it was dismissed on the preliminary point of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is a settled principle of law that if a Commission lacks the inherent jurisdiction to entertain a matter, any proceedings. Therefore, a dismissal or withdrawal based on a jurisdictional defect does not constitute a "decision on merits" and cannot operate as res judicata or a bar under Order XXIII.
27. The State commission observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a piece of social welfare legislation intended to provide a summary yet effective remedy to consumers. Rigid, hyper-technical applications of the CPC designed for civil courts cannot be used to stifle a consumer's right to justice, especially when the initial filing error was purely procedural i.e. on the valuation of the claim. While the Opponent cited the maxim invito beneficium non datur (the law confers no benefit on one who does not desire it), this Commission observed that the Complainant clearly "desires" the benefit of adjudication, as evidenced by his immediate attempt to re-file in the correct commission. The withdrawal was a strategic necessity to move the case to the competent Commission, not a relinquishment of his rights. Consequently, we hold that since the earlier complaint was withdrawn specifically because of a jurisdictional hurdle, the Complainant is not barred from pursuing his grievances before this Commission. The present complaint is, therefore, held to be NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 12 of 16 maintainable in law. In view of our finding given as to have point No.1 in affirmative.
Point No.2
28. After perusal of record, this commission observed that the Complainant's primary prayer is for the replacement of the vehicle due to alleged "defects beyond repairs" It is an established principle, reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. N. Siva Kumar (2000) and Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (2022), that A dealer is an agent for sales and service but does not design or manufacture the vehicle. Any order for replacement or refund due to "inherent manufacturing defects" directly affects the rights and finances of the Manufacturer. An effective decree for replacement cannot be passed in the absence of the Manufacturer.
29. Further, this commission observed that the Complainant has spent over Rs. 46 Lakhs on a luxury vehicle and has faced documented issues of water leakage a serious grievance. However, by failing to implead the Manufacturer despite the Opponent raising this objection in their written version years ago, the Complainant has left the suit technically "bad for non-joinder of a necessary party."
30. Further, this commission opinion that the core issue for determination is whether a direction for the replacement of a vehicle can be legally sustained when the manufacturer has not been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. It is a settled principle of law that a manufacturing defect is an inherent flaw NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 13 of 16 that originates at the point of production, for which the manufacturer bears primary liability. In the absence of the manufacturer, the Commission is deprived of the opportunity to hear the version of the party most competent to address technical allegations. Furthermore, a dealer acts on a principal-to-principal basis and cannot be held solely liable for inherent manufacturing defects unless it is proven that the dealer had specific knowledge of the defect at the time of sale or failed to rectify it through service. Therefore, the non-joinder of a necessary party (the manufacturer) is fatal to a prayer for total replacement. Without an expert opinion obtained under the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act such as Section 38 of the 2019 Act or Section 13(1)(c) of the 1986 Act and the presence of the manufacturer to contest such findings, a State Commission cannot pass a order for replacement, as it would violate the principles of natural justice and exceed the scope of the dealer's liability. In view of our finding given as to have point No.2 in Negative.
As to pint No.3
31. Upon a meticulous examination of the records and the prolonged history of the vehicle's mechanical failures, the state Commission observes that the Complainant has established a clear case of deficiency in service. It is an admitted fact that a luxury vehicle, for which a substantial consideration of Rs. 46,03,434/- was paid, suffered from chronic issues specifically the "profuse leakage" from the roof and electronic malfunctions within a very short span of its purchase. The Opponent's failure to permanently rectify these defects, despite multiple repair attempts NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 14 of 16 and the vehicle remaining in their workshop since June 2013, signifies a failure to fulfil the "Star Ease Service Package Agreement." While the Opponent attempted to shift the liability to the manufacturer, this Commission notes that as the direct service provider and the party in possession of the vehicle, the Dealer cannot escape its obligation to deliver a defect free product to the consumer. Furthermore, the Complainant has been deprived of the use of his premium vehicle for over a decade while it remained stagnant in the Opponent's custody. This long-standing deprivation constitutes not only a breach of contract but a source of immense mental agony and financial loss, thereby entitling the Complainant to comprehensive repairs at no additional cost and a just compensation for the years of non-use and harassment. In view of our finding given as to have point No.3 in Affirmative.
As to point no.4
32. In view of our findings as to point no.1 and 3 Affirmative & 2 in Negative. The Commission finds the Opponent guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to rectify recurring defects in a luxury segment vehicle. The Opponent is directed to carry out comprehensive repairs of the vehicle, specifically addressing the roof leakage and all electronic defects, to the total satisfaction of the Complainant. These repairs shall be done free of cost. Upon completion of repairs, the Opponent must provide a certificate of roadworthiness and a guarantee for the repaired parts for a period of 12 months. The Opponent is directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of use of the vehicle and the mental agony caused by the NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 15 of 16 prolonged detention of the car since 2013. The Opponent shall pay Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. in view of the facts of this case, in an answer to point No.4, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1.The Consumer Complaint No. CC/203/2014 is partly allowed.
2. It is directed to the Opponent to carry out comprehensive repairs of the vehicle, specifically addressing the roof leakage and all electronic defects, to the total satisfaction of the Complainant. These repairs shall be done free of cost.
3. It is directed to the Opponent, must provide a certificate of roadworthiness and a guarantee for the repaired parts for a period of 12 months.
4. It is directed to the Opponent to pay the Complainant Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of use of the vehicle and the mental agony caused by the prolonged detention of the car since 2013.
5. It is directed to the Opponent to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
NAC+RRP CC/14/203 Page 16 of 16
6. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The copy of this order to be furnished free of cost to the complainant.
[Poonam V. Maharshi] Presiding Member [Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan] Member NAC+RRP