State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prince Bansal vs M/S Mercedes Benz India Private Limited on 27 March, 2019
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No. : 708 of 2017 Date of Institution : 28.09.2017 Date of Decision : 27.03.2019 Prince Bansal resident of Flat No.1361, Progressive Enclave, Sector 50, Chandigarh. ......Complainant Versus 1. M/s Mercedes Benz India Private Limited, E-3, MIDC Chakan, Phase III, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Taluka Khed, Pune 410501 (India) through its Managing Director. 2. Managing Director, Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. (Mercedes Benz Passengers Vehicles) 84-85, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh. 3. Authorised Signatory, Dalmier AG, 70546, Stuffgart, Germany. .... Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.
Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate, Proxy for Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.
Service of Opposite Party No.3 deferred vide order dated 13.11.2017.
PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER The facts, in brief, are that the car of the complainant i.e. Mercedes C220 CDI (Polar While), manufactured & marketed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3), which he bought from Opposite Party No.2 on 17.09.2015 against sale consideration of Rs.37 Lakhs, started giving some noise problem from the front and cabin only just after 18 days i.e. on 05.10.2015 of its purchase, when it had run only 1424 KMs. On investigation by Opposite Party No.2, all its shockers were found defective, which were replaced within two days. On noticing unusual sound coming from the doors of the car, it was taken to the workshop on 25.11.2015 itself and the doors were adjusted. The complainant noticed a cut on left hand side tyre, which was also replaced on 27.11.2015. Qua cabin noise, the complainant reported the matter to Opposite Party No.2 on 09.12.2015 at 3565 KMs whereupon sunroof of the car was adjusted. The complainant again noticed an unusual cut mark on the front tyre, which was replaced on 24.12.2015 at 4140 Kms. The vehicle was again reported to the shop at 5588 KMs with complaint of cabin noise and again sunroof of the car was adjusted. The complainant sent email dated 14.12.2015 to the opposite parties with regard to the problem being faced by him, which was replied by the opposite parties on 02.01.2016. Thereafter numerous emails were sent but to no avail. The car was inspected for more than 5 times within a short span of 3 months of its purchase and finally the opposite parties came to a decision of inspecting the vehicle from MB experts but nothing was done.
2. The matter was again reported to the complainant on 08.03.2016 at 7961 KMs with problem of noise and air cutting noise and touch pad hanged in between. The opposite parties replaced seal frames of all the doors and sun room was replaced and software of the touch pad was updated. The vehicle was again reported on 16.03.2016 at 7971 KMS with the problem of same cabin and air cutting noise. The opposite parties adjusted all the doors again and beading was also adjusted. When nothing was being done by the opposite parties, the complainant got inspected/checked his car from M/s Grace Automotives, who after running it for 60 KMs, gave Inspection Report dated 23.04.2016, as per which, the noise of the vehicle seemed to be due to some inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle, which the dealer is unable to locate and rectify. The complainant served legal notice dated 01.06.2016 upon the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a brand new one or in alternative, refund its price but to no avail. Stating above facts, by way of filing this complaint, a prayer has been made by the complainants to direct opposite parties either to replace the vehicle with a brand new car or in alternative, refund its cost i.e. Rs.37 Lakhs, insurance charges Rs.1,09,000/- & Registration charges R.2,96,000/-. Besides this, the complainant has also sought compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs on account of harassment, mental agony and tension and Rs.33,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. Opposite Party No.1, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the cars manufactured by it are world class car with reputation for safety, comfort, quality and engineering precision. It was stated that the car sold to the complainant was having warranty of three years commencing from the date of first registration or date of sales invoice/delivery note i.e. 17.09.2015, whichever occurs earlier, without mileage limitation. It was further stated that as per warranty, the liability of Opposite Party No.1 was limited to the value of the service/repairs/ replacement of parts found to be defective within the warranty period. It was admitted that qua the unusual noise reported for the first time, the shock absorbers were found defective, which were replaced under warranty. Subsequently, the complaint of noise coming from front door was also attended under warranty. Again on 9.12.2015, when the vehicle was reported for unusual noise in cabin and cut mark on front tyre, the same was attended by the dealer by adjusting sunroof under warranty and replacing the tyre free of cost although the tyre was not covered under warranty.
4. It was stated that as per statement/email communication dated 17.11.2017 (Annexure - C), Technical Expert of Opposite Party No.1, namely, Sh. Sunil Dagar, all the concerns of the complainant were duly attended. It was further stated that the complainant had purchased the vehicle and taken delivery of the same after a thorough examination and trial of the car and on being fully satisfied of its conditions. It was further stated that despite the fact that opposite parties addressed all the concerns free of charge under warranty and the vehicle had clocked an odometer reading of 29,215 KMs as on 01.12.2017, the complainant has raised a claim of Rs.44,38,000/- to replace the car or refund the amount, cost of litigation and mental agony.
5. Saying that neither there is any deficiency in rendering service nor adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, it was prayed that this complaint being purely speculative and vexatious in nature, be dismissed.
6. Opposite Party No.2, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the vehicle was reported to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 at mileage of 1424 KMs on 05.10.2015 and after checking, it was explained to the complainant that the noise is normal as it is coming on the rough roads but in order to satisfy the complainant, as per diagnosis, shockers were replaced under warranty and vehicle was delivered to the complainant to his entire satisfaction. It was further stated that the vehicle was reported again to the workshop on 16.11.2015. It was denied that there was any unusual sound from the doors and the vehicle was attended to under warranty at 3177 KMs. It was further stated that again the vehicle was reported at 3203 KMs with the problem of "All Door Noisy" and it was checked and found ok. Again the vehicle was brought to the workshop on 27.11.2015 at 3220 KMs with the concern of front LHS tyre having cut, which was replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that the problems occurring in the vehicle attended by the opposite party No.2 were due to wear and tear. It was further stated that again on 24.12.2015 at mileage of 4140 KMs, the vehicle was reported with the complaint of LHS tyre cut, though there was no fault on the part of opposite party No.2, the said tyre was replaced under the conditions of warranty. It was further stated that in order to satisfy the complainant, the vehicle was got checked from MB Expert from Mercedes Benz. It was denied that the vehicle started air cutting noise as alleged. It was stated that the vehicle was again reported with the problem of cabin noise and air cutting, touch pad hang sometime, service camp. The vehicle was reported after short test and software was updated and other problems were found ok, service camp performed. It was further stated that the vehicle was again reported on 16.03.2016 at 7971 KMs with the problem of cabin noise and air cutting noise whereupon all doors were adjusted, checked and found ok.
7. Saying that neither there is any deficiency in rendering service nor adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, it was prayed that this complaint being purely speculative and vexatious in nature, be dismissed.
8. The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their cases.
9. We have heard the contesting parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of all the cases, carefully.
10. It is admitted on record that the complainant purchased Mercedes Benz car - C220 CDI (Polar While) from Opposite Party No.2 on 17.09.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.37 Lakhs. Perusal of Job Sheet dated 05.10.2015 on record shows that the vehicle was reported to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 on 05.10.2015 at mileage of 1424 KMs with the complaint of 'NOISE COMING ON FRONT SIDE' and after diagnosis, it was opined that all four shocker need to be replaced, which were replaced under warranty. On 16.11.2015, the vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.2 on 16.11.2015 for first inspection and then on 25.11.2015 at mileage of 3203 KMs with complaint of 'ALL DOOR NOISY'. The doors were adjusted and found to be ok as per Diagnosis Remarks on the job sheet. Again on 27.11.2015, the complainant took his vehicle to the workshop at mileage of 3220 KMs with problem of 'FRONT LHS TIRE HAVING CUT'. The tyre was replaced free of cost. Thereafter, the vehicle was again reported with the problem of 'NOISE INSIDE CABIN' on 09.12.2015 at a mileage of 3565 KMs. The sunroof was adjusted and the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant after two days. Then on 09.12.2015, when the vehicle had covered mileage of 4140 KMs, it was again taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 with the problem of 'FRONT LHS TIRE CUT', which was replaced without charging anything from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 28.01.2016 with the complaint of 'NOISE COMING FROM INTERIOR ON ROUGH ROAD', at mileage of 5588 KMs. To rectify the said problem, all doors and sunroof were adjusted and after checking the same were found ok. The sequence of complaints does not stop here. The vehicle was again reported to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 on 08.03.2016 at 7971 KMs for the problems of 'CABIN NOISE & AIR CUTTING TOUCH PAD HANGE SOME TIME AND SERVICE CAMP'. The said problems were rectified by performing short test and software was updated. However, touch pad was found OK. Service Camp was also performed. Thereafter, the vehicle was again taken to the workshop on 16.03.2016 at mileage of 7971 KMs with the same problem of 'CABIN NOISE & AIR CUTTING NOISE', which was attended by adjusting all doors.
11. Reading of above brings the controversy to a narrow compass. The sole grievance of the complainant is qua creaking noise coming out of the chamber, emanating from doors, sunroof etc. We also notice the above grievance of the complainant in zimini order dated 13.07.2018, which is extracted hereunder:-
"It is the grievance of the complainant that as and when car, in dispute, is driven, there is creaking noise in the chamber, emanating from doors, sunroof etc. There exist contrary reports put on record by both the parties contradictory to each other. Counsel for the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 state that let the car be sent to an independent agency for giving report qua the grievance raised by the complainant.
Under above circumstances, we request to the Principal/Director of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh to constitute a team of two experts to check the abovesaid grievances of the complainant. The experts may run the car for a sufficient distance before arriving at any conclusion. The complainant is directed to take the car to the Principal/Director of Punjab Engineering College, UT, Chandigarh on 26.07.2018 at 11.00 AM. Representative of Opposite Party No.1 shall also remain present. The fee for inspection of the vehicle is fixed at Rs.30,000/-, which shall be paid by the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 (Rs.15,000/- each) at the spot against receipt.
Adjourned to 28.08.2018.
Principal/Director of Punjab Engineering College, UT, Chandigarh is requested to send the report, after inspection of the vehicle, to the office of this Commission before the next date of hearing.
Certified copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel for the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and one copy be also sent to the Principal/Director of Punjab Engineering College, UT, Chandigarh forthwith."
12. As there existed contrary reports on record of both the parties, we requested the Principal/Director of Punjab Engineering College, U.T., Chandigarh to constitute a team of two experts to check the abovesaid grievances of the complainant and the said the experts were granted liberty to run the car for a sufficient distance before arriving at any conclusion. In compliance to our order dated 13.07.2018, the expert report dated 20.08.2018 of team of experts, constituting Prof. Sushant Samir, Professor, Sh. Gopal Dass, W.I and Prof. Ankit Yadav, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engg. Deptt., Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh was received in this Commission on 20.08.2018 itself, relevant portion whereof reads thus:-
"The vehicle having registration no.CH01BE7575, Chassis No.WDD2050026L003465, Engine No.65192132732459 was presented for inspection and test drive. The vehicle in question was inspected and test driven for 34 kms.
During test drive the committee noticed that there was a creaking noise of small intensity emanating from the rear door of the vehicle in question. No other type of sound/noise was observed inside the seating area during test drive."
13. It may be stated here that the test drive was conducted by the expert team of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh on 08.08.2018 in the presence of Sh. Prince Bansal, complainant alongwith Sh. Sunil Dagar, Senior Technical Manager, Mercedes Benz, Pune.
14. As per the expert report of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, after inspecting and test driving the vehicle, in question, for 34 kMs, noticed that there was a creaking noise of small intensity emanating from the rear door of the vehicle and no other type of sound/noise was observed inside the seating area during test drive.
15. As such, going by the expert report of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, we are of the considered opinion that despite attending to the complaint qua noise from the doors, twice or thrice, the said problem still persists in the vehicle. However, it is limited only to the extent of small intensity and that too only from the rear door of the vehicle, as per the expert report and no other noise was noticed by the said experts. Accordingly, we do not find any justification for replacement of vehicle or reimbursement of the whole cost of the vehicle. On the other hand, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered lot of inconvenience and misery due to said noise problem right from the initial days of its purchase. As no purchaser of a new vehicle would ever think that he would be going to garage to get the vehicle repaired so often even if the repairs may be minor. As such, the purchaser is definitely liable to receive some compensation for inconvenience and mental agony faced by him due to supply of a vehicle having some defects.
16. Not only above, the complainant purchased the vehicle, in question, believing it to be world class with reputation for its safety, comfort, quality and engineering precision, however, it was not so. It is also claimed by opposite parties No.1 & 2 that the car manufactured by them undergo stringent checks at every stage and have received certification from international agencies but despite the said claim of theirs, the fact remains that within a few days of its purchase, the car, in question, developed the said mentioned problems, which the opposite parties failed to rectify despite taking the car for repairs several times. Emails were also written by the complainant to the opposite parties putting forth his grievance.
17. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the only problem noticed by the expert committee of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh was regarding creaking noise of small intensity emanating from the rear right door of the vehicle, in question, which was not rectified by the opposite parties, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant was made to visit the workshop again and again for repair of his high end car. This has certainly caused immense mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, for which, the opposite parties are liable to compensate him. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to him on account of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties.
18. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs and the opposite parties are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-
i. To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to him due to deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties.
ii. To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant. iii. The directions at Sr.(i) and (ii), above, be complied with by the opposite parties, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the amounts mentioned at Sr. Nos.(i) and (ii), shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization. 19. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. 27.03.2019. [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad