State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Narayan Thakkar, Through Power Of ... vs M/S. Auto Hanger India Pvt.Ltd. ... on 28 April, 2017
CC/07/36
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/07/36
Mr.Naryan Thakkar
Through Power of Attorney Holder
Mr.Mehul Thakkar
At Mittal Industrial Area,
47-48, 5B, Andheri (E),
Mumbai - 400 059. ...........Complainant (s)
Versus
1. M/s.Auto Hanger India Pvt. Ltd.
Managing Director & Service Manager
35, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Killick Nixon,
Chandivali, Andheri (E),
Mumbai - 400 072.
2. M/s.Daimler Chrysler
Chairman & Managing Director
Regd. Office at Sector 15-A,
Chikali, Pimpri, Pune - 411 018.
3. M/s.Tata AIG Insurance Co. Ltd.
4th floor, Ahura Centre,
Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 099. ............Opponent (s)
BEFORE:
P. B. Joshi PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
D.R. Shirasao JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Mr.Uday Wavikar, Advocate for the
Complainant: complainant.
For the Mr.Rajesh Kanojia, Advocate a/w.
Opponent: Ms.Deepika Motagi Prabhala, i/b.
Hariani & Co. for opponent No.1.
Mr.M.S. Pandit, Advocate for opponent
No.2.
Mr.Latesh Fariya, Advocate h/f.
Mr.A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate for
opponent No.3.
ORDER
Per Shri P.B. Joshi, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member Complainant purchased Mercedes Benz, model E 220(211) Diesel Page 1 of 18 CC/07/36 four-wheeler vehicle (hereinafter referred to as 'the car') from opponent No.1 manufactured by opponent No.2 for total price of Rs.34,88,105/-. Complainant also spent Rs.1,54,524/- for registration of the vehicle. Warranty period was of two years. Within a period of 1½ years i.e. on or about 26/04/2005 complainant faced problems with turbo charger and the engine mount due to which problems car was to stand idle for a considerable period as the spare parts were not available. Complainant by his reminder letter dated 19/05/2005 to opponent No.2 protested that the car was purchased for highway security but this purpose was not served due to frequent problems faced by the complainant. Complainant by his letters dated 27/05/2005 and 16/06/2005 while referring to opponent No.2 clarified that the car was solely driven by one reliable driver and is always running on city roads and highways. Complainant also highlighted various problems he faced due to defects in the car. By letter dated 24/06/2005 opponent No.2 referred to visit of their Service Representative, Mr.Lino Marques on 17/06/2005 visited at the Mumbai workshop of opponent No.1 for inspection of defective car and referred to certain clarifications allegedly provided by said Mr.Marques. Opponent No.2 also extended warranty on the said car by period of four months upto 30/11/2005. It was contended by the complainant that in the matter of Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. V/s. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., IV (2007) CPJ 1, Hon'ble National Commission has referred to an article in Times Global Business Magazine, that report 1.3 million cars were withdrawn by the manufacturing company. The problems began after Mercedes launched its 'E' Class series in 2002 only to face a barrage of complaints about cars that did not start or kept breaking down continuously. More than 200 teams of engineers ripped the car apart to identify and overcome the troubles, which included design and production snafus in complex electronics systems. The firm recalled 1.3 million cars Page 2 of 18 CC/07/36 including C-Class, SI-Class as well as E-Class models manufactured between 2002 and 2005, took back the vehicles, switched engines in some models and started providing two year full service warranties to disgruntled owners. Complainant had also purchased E-Class model in 2003 and had encountered said problems of frequent breakdowns as happened to the said E-Class models abroad. Complainant has contended that opponent No.2 did not extend same treatment for E-Class model of cars sold in India to recall and replace the defective parts and engines and did not provide two year full service warranties and thus, opponents have committed unfair trade practices.
2. Complainant had placed on record by his letter dated 16/06/2005 the various problems encountered by him and asked for replacement of the car as said car had manufacturing defects. Opponents have not replaced the car. Hence, consumer complaint was filed with prayers that to hold and declare opponents guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and it was prayed that opponents be directed to take back said defective vehicle and refund the amount of Rs.36,42,629/- paid by the complainant towards purchase price of said car. Complainant also prayed that opponents be directed to pay to the complainant interest on the bank loan paid by the complainant to ICICI Bank. Complainant also prayed that opponents be directed to reimburse amount of Rs.20,40,871/- incurred by the complainant towards expenses for the repairs of said defective car along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realisation of the same. Complainant prayed that opponents be directed to pay to the complainant Rs.15 Lakhs towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- on account of costs and expenses for the complaint.
3. Opponent No.1 resisted the complaint by filing written version which is at page-74 of complaint compilation. Opponent No.1 has not Page 3 of 18 CC/07/36 disputed about purchase of said car by complainant from opponent No.1 and it was manufactured by opponent No.2. It was contended by opponent No.1 that manufacturer and dealer act in different contractual capacities and are separate parties acting in their own capacities and the relationship between each and every person is at arm's length. It was contended by opponent No.1 being Authorised Service Station and Repair Agents cannot possess all the spare parts and manufacturing components of the vehicle. It was further contended that as per trade practice, opponent No.1 is provided with certain spare parts, items and brakes which are required during normal wear and tear of the vehicles in their daily usage. In case the vehicle is reported for major repairs requiring parts/components which are normally not available with the Authorised Service Station Agents, opponent No.1 has to procure it from Logistic Centre of opponent No.2 at Pune, which requires period of three to four days for delivery of the spare parts from opponent No.2. In case spare part as requested is not available at Pune Centre, it has to be procured from Regional Logistic Centre of opponent No.2 at Singapore which takes period of 10 to 12 days for procurement . In case, part/component is also not available at Regional Logistic Centre, the same is indented from Global Logistic Centre of opponent No.2 at Stuttgart, Germany and the time taken for such procurement of spare part is 18 days or beyond depending upon the type of part or component and the model to which the spare is requested for. Opponent No.1 has denied unfair trade practices and manufacturing defects as alleged. Opponent No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opponent No.2 has resisted the complaint by filing written version which is at page-101 of complaint compilation. Opponent No.2 has not disputed about purchase of said car from opponent No.1-Authorised Dealer of opponent No.2. Opponent No.2 has denied about unfair trade Page 4 of 18 CC/07/36 practice and about manufacturing defects in the said car. Opponent No.2 has contended that complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because said car is being used in connection with business activities of the complainant. It was contended that subject matter of the dispute involves four years old vehicle which was severely affected by unprecedented flood in July 2005 which paralysed the city for 3to4 days. Complainant cannot blame anyone for Act of God (vis major). It was contended by opponent No.2 that complaint is hopelessly time-barred. Opponent No.2 has contended that complainant to get his vehicle tested by appropriate laboratory. Complainant is required to establish manufacturing defects at his costs at appropriate laboratory as specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Opponent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opponent No.3/Insurance Company has resisted the complaint by filing written version which is at page-257 of complaint compilation. It is contended that complaint is only about manufacturing defects in the car and hence, Insurance Company is not liable for the same and prayed for dismissal of complaint against opponent No.3.
6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, considering the record and keeping in view the scope of the complaint, following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon are noted for the reasons as below :-
Sr.No. Points Finding
Whether complainant is a consumer as
1. contemplated under the provisions of Yes
Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2. Whether complaint filed by the Yes
complainant is within limitation?
3. Whether there is deficiency in service & Yes
unfair trade practice on the part of
Page 5 of 18
CC/07/36
opponent Nos.1&2?
Whether opponent No.3/Insurance
4. Company is liable to pay any No
compensation to the complainant?
Whether the complainant is entitled for
5. refund of amount of Rs.36,42,629/- from Yes
opponent Nos.1&2 by taking back said
car?
Whether the complainant is entitled for
6. amount of interest paid by complainant No
for loan taken from ICICI Bank?
Whether the complainant is entitled for
Rs.20,40,871/- incurred by complainant
7. towards expenses for repairing of said car As per final order.
along with interest @ 18% p.a. as claimed?
Whether the complainant is entitled for
8. Rs.15 Lakhs on account of compensation As per final order.
for mental agony?
9. Complaint is partly What order?
allowed.
REASONS :-
7. Point No.1 (Consumer) :- Opponent Nos.1&2 have contended that complainant is not a consumer. However, we find that there is nothing on record to support said contention of the opponents. On the other hand, it is very clear that said car was purchased by the complainant. No doubt the complainant is running business at Mittal Industrial Area, Andheri, Mumbai. Only because of that it cannot be said that complainant is not a consumer. Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted a judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. V/s. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., IV (2007) CPJ 1. In that case, cars were purchased by the complainant-
company for the use of Directors of the Company and opponent has raised point that as the cars were purchased by the Company for the Directors, it is for commercial purpose. It was held by Hon'ble National Commission Page 6 of 18 CC/07/36 that two cars were purchased for the use of Directors and not to be used for any activities directly connected with the commercial purpose of earning profit. The cars are not used for hire but for personal use of the Directors. Hence, it cannot be said that complainant-company has purchased cars for commercial purpose. In view of said judgment of Hon'ble National Commission where the cars were purchased by the company for directors, we find no substance in the contention of the opponents before us that complainant is not a consumer as complainant is running business. Here in the present case, complainant has purchased a car in his name to be used for his personal use and not for any activity directly connected with the commercial purpose of earning profit. Thus, it is very clear that the complainant is a consumer as contemplated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.
8. Point No.2 (Limitation) :- Opponent Nos.1&2 have raised defence that complaint is time-barred. It is admitted position that the car was purchased on 28/07/2003 and the complaint was filed on 22/02/2007. Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted that car started giving trouble within few days from the date of purchase. Warranty was for two years. This fact of warranty period is not disputed by the opponents. Thus, warranty period was till 27/07/2005. Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted that trouble started few days after purchase of car. On 26/04/2005 complainant faced problems with turbo charger and engine mount due to which problems the car had to stand idle for a considerable period as spare parts were not available. Complainant by his reminder letter dated 19/05/2005 to opponent No.2 protested that car was purchased for highway security but this purpose was not served due to frequent problems faced by the complainant. Letter sent by the complainant to opponent No.2 dated 19/05/2005 is at page-21 of complaint Page 7 of 18 CC/07/36 compilation. It is replied by opponent No.2 to complainant which is at page-23 of complaint compilation. Then other correspondences are at page-24to28 of complaint compilation. Learned Advocate for the complainant has contended that within period of warranty, the complainant faced major problem about the car. Complainant by letter dated 20/06/2006 asked the opponents to take back the car and refund the money. Opponents did not refund and that is the date of cause of action for filing consumer complaint. Since that date, complaint was filed within two years i.e. on 22/02/2007 and thus, complaint is well within limitation. In view of these facts, we find that complaint is well within limitation. Hence, we answer Point No.2 in affirmative.
9. Point No.3 (Deficiency) :- Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted that complainant has purchased a luxurious car Mercedes Benz, model E 220(211) Diesel four-wheeler vehicle from opponent No.1 manufactured by opponent No.2 for total price of Rs.34,88,105/-. However, said car started giving trouble within a few days from the purchase of car. Complainant was required to take the car to opponent No.1-Authorised Dealer of opponent No.2. Advocate for the complainant has drawn our attention to the correspondence between complainant and opponents, particularly, opponent No.2. Learned Advocate for the complainant has drawn our attention to page-21 of complaint complainant. On that page there is a letter dated 19/05/2005 sent by the complainant to opponent No.2. It was reminder about performance of said car. It is mentioned in the said letter that the car was purchased on 29/07/2003. Within warranty period of two years, complainant had to put the car several times in the workshop for one or other problems. It was also mentioned in the letter that the complainant has taken car regularly for servicing as per instructions of opponent No.1. It was mentioned that during said period of warranty, so many parts were required to be changed.
Page 8 of 18CC/07/36 It was mentioned in the said letter that when the complainant was returning from Silvassa, all of a sudden the car started vibrating violently on the highway. It is mentioned that the complainant cannot describe in words what efforts he has taken to put to get back the car home and into the workshop. It was further mentioned that frequency of parts are being changed is alarming. It was mentioned in the letter that most of the times, the car is lying in the workshop and hence, complainant was to keep alternative cars handy for travel. It was further mentioned that these alternative cars purchased one year after the Mercedes Benz and have covered more distance in kilometres than the said car. It was further mentioned that for most parts that complainant need to replace was told that the order for those parts are given to Germany which would take 10- 15 days. It is material to note that at page-23 there is a letter dated 19/05/2005 of opponent No.2 addressed to complainant and that is a reply to the letter sent by the complainant on 11/05/2005. It is mentioned in said reply that opponent No.2 is in receipt of feedback from its dealer-M/s.Auto Hanger, Mumbai i.e. opponent No.1. It is mentioned in the said letter that M/s.Auto Hanger-opponent No.2 received necessary parts required for attending subject vehicle and sure that they will not spare any efforts to attend all the concerns reported. At page-24 there is a letter dated 27/05/2005 addressed by the complainant to opponent No.2 in pursuance to letter of opponent No.2 to complainant on 19/05/2005. It was mentioned in the said letter that car shutdown at least for 50 times over a run of 50 Kms. At page-25 there is a reminder from the complainant to opponent No.2 dated 16/06/2005. At page-26 there is a letter dated 24/06/2005 from opponent No.2 to complainant in respect of said car. By the said letter, opponent No.2 informed the complainant that warranty for said car was extended by four months or upto 65000 Kms. At page-27 there is a letter dated 18/09/2005 from opponent No.1 to complainant i.e. Page 9 of 18 CC/07/36 Supplementary Estimate for repair and replacement of the parts and total amount is shown as Rs.5,12,225/-. It is mentioned that supplementary estimate, if any, will be submitted during the course of repairs. At page- 29,30&31 there are letters from opponent No.1 to complainant and from complainant to opponent No.2 respectively.
10. At page-32 there is a legal notice issued by Advocate of the complainant to opponent No.2 mentioning therein about nine major breakdowns apart from other problems. Those nine breakdowns are from 31/03/2005 to 17/09/2006. It is shown that on 17/09/2006 said vehicle was taken to opponent No.1 and it is in the workshop. By said notice complainant called upon opponent No.2 to replace the car or alternative refund the amount and the money spent towards repairs of the car. At page-38 there is a letter dated 04/11/2006 from complainant to opponent No.1. It is mentioned in the said letter that said vehicle was delivered to complainant on 03/11/2006 from Andheri Workshop. However, problem still persists for which the car was taken to the workshop of opponent No.1. It is further mentioned that the car had breakdown and was taken to workshop of opponent No.1. Even after keeping the car for more than 40 days in the workshop and after Mr.Lino Marques from DC-India had done pre-inspection of vehicle and concluded that the vehicle was performing okay as informed by opponent No.1, car was delivered to the complainant. In spite of that problem persists. It is material to note that at page-39 of complaint compilation there is a reply from opponent No.1 to the complainant in reply to his letter dated 04/11/2006. At page-40 there is a letter from opponent No.1 to complainant and it is dated 21/11/2006. In the said letter it is mentioned that - "Our technician took a joint trial with your goodself on 20th November 2006 and observed that the RPM would rise and there would be delay in shifting of gears. The car was subsequently brought to our workshop for further checks and diagnosis.
Page 10 of 18CC/07/36 We shall inspect the vehicle and revert to you for the same with our diagnosis." At page-41 of complaint compilation there is a letter dated 11/12/2006 from opponent No.1 to complainant. It is mentioned in the said letter that - "Mr.Steven Lobo of M/s.Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited has also inspected the car on his visit to our workshop on 5th December 2006 until the 8th of December 2006 and concluded that the torque converter needs replacement." At page-42 to 61 of complaint compilation there are workshop orders about said car. Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted that said material is sufficient to show that there was a manufacturing defect in the car and car has given continuous trouble since purchase.
11. Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. V/s. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., IV (2007) CPJ 1, Hon'ble National Commission has observed that - "As per Times Global Business Magazine report 1.3 million cars were withdrawn by the manufacturing company. The problems began in earnest after Mercedes launched its 'E' Class series in 2002 only to face a barrage of complaints about cars that did not start or kept breaking down. The company quickly realized the model had some serious flaws, and moved aggressively to fix them. More than 200 teams of engineers ripped the car apart to identify and overcome the troubles, which included design and production snafus in complex electronics systems. The firm recalled 1.3 million cars including C-Class, SL-Class as well as E-Class models built between 2002 and 2005, took back the lemons, switched engines in some models and started providing two year full service warranties to disgruntled owners."
12. Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted that car purchased by the complainant is also manufactured during same period Page 11 of 18 CC/07/36 and of the same model i.e. mentioned in the said judgment. He has referred to page-19 of complaint compilation wherein the description of the car is given as Make-Mercedes Benz, Model- E 220 (211) Diesel Car and Date of production - 11/07/2003. We have already referred above the observations of Hon'ble National Commission and at the cost of repetition, we again mentioned here that it is observed by Hon'ble National Commission that - "The firm this year recalled 1.3 million cars including C-Class, SL-Class as well as E-Class models built between 2002 and 2005, took back the lemons, switched engines in some models and started providing two year full service warranties to disgruntled owners."
13. Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted that apart from documents filed by the complainant showing that car was suffering from so many defects, these observations of Hon'ble National Commission further fortified the contention of the complainant that the car of the complainant is from said lot which was called back by opponent No.2. however, only cars of other countries than India were called back.
14. Learned Advocate for opponent No.1 has argued that said car was assembled in India and hence, this car was not recalled as like cars in other countries. We find that said argument of Learned Advocate of opponent No.1 cannot be accepted for the simple reason that though car was assembled in India, it was manufactured in Germany and only assembled here. No reason is put forth by the opponents particularly, opponent No.2- manufacturer of the car why the cars in India of the same period and of those models were not called back when the cars in other countries were called back.
15. Learned Advocate for opponent No.1 has further argued that Hon'ble National Commission has decided the case on factual matrix and Page 12 of 18 CC/07/36 not laid down any ratio and hence, judgment of Hon'ble National Commission is not helpful to the complainant here in the present case. Judgments of higher courts are generally relied for the ratio laid down in the judgment. However, here is the case where observations about the factual matrix can be considered in the present case. The reason is that the point before the National Commission in the said matter and the point before us is the same i.e. about manufacturing defect of the car i.e. Mercedes Benz, period of manufacturing and class of the car and hence that is a part of evidence which can be considered while deciding present matter. We have already discussed above that the present car is amongst the same model which were called back by the manufacturer from different countries other than India. The period of manufacturing i.e. 2002 to 2005 is also helpful to the complainant in the present matter as his car was manufactured in the year 2003. It is material to note that Advocate for opponent No.2 has not argued much on this aspect except that recalling was not relevant. Said argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that those recalling of the cars was only because of manufacturing defects, otherwise there was no reason for recalling of cars. Thus, we find that even considering arguments of Advocate of opponent Nos.1&2 on this aspect and considering the material on record as discussed above and the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission where said aspect was discussed in detail, we find that there is sufficient material on record to accept the contention of the complainant that said car is having manufacturing defects.
16. Learned Advocate for opponent No.2 has submitted that one application was moved by opponent No.2 for testing said car by the laboratory. Said application was opposed by the complainant. It was argued that the application was moved to see whether there is any manufacturing defect or not. By opposing said application, complainant Page 13 of 18 CC/07/36 impliedly admitted that there is no manufacturing defect. Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted that even in the matter before the Hon'ble National Commission, complainant refused to get the vehicle to be tested by ARAI as per provisions of Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In spite of that on the basis of material on record, Hon'ble National Commission has concluded that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. We have already discussed above the material placed on record by the complainant to show manufacturing defect. We have already referred above about number of times major breakdowns. Change of Turbo Charger and Engine Mount and so many other problems as discussed above. Thus, we find that in view of above discussion, arguments of Advocate of opponent No.2 that complainant opposed testing of vehicle by the laboratory will amount to no manufacturing defect cannot be accepted.
17. Learned Advocate for opponent No.2 has submitted that vehicle was entirely submerged in the flood of 2005 and it is because of that vehicle was entirely damaged. Learned Advocate for the complainant has submitted that the flood was on 27th July 2005 whereas complaint about engine was made even before 19/05/2005. The reminder was sent by the complainant to opponent No.2 about problems in the car and said reminder is dated 19/05/2005. We have already referred above letter of opponent No.2 dated 19/05/2005 addressed to complainant and there is reference of letter of the complainant dated 11/5/2005 in respect of problems of the vehicle. We have already discussed above those letters. Thus, it is very clear that before said flood of 27th July 2005 so many problems were faced by the complainant in respect of said car and were informed to the opponents as discussed above. Thus, said argument of Learned Advocate for opponent No.2 that car was submerged at the time of said flood of July 2005 and hence there was complete damage of the car cannot be accepted.
Page 14 of 18CC/07/36
18. Learned Advocate for opponent No.1 has submitted judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.545 of 1994 in the case of Chairman, Board of Examinations, Madras V/s. Mohideen Abdul Kader, decided on 16/01/1996. Said judgment is on the point of Doctrine of Stare Decises. After going through said judgment, we find that that is not at all relevant in the present matter. In the said judgment it was held that imparting education is a service under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That point has no concern with the present matter. As far as Doctrine of Stare Decises is concerned, we find that is also not any way helpful to the opponents.
19. Learned Advocate for the opponents submitted judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Vinay kartika Chadha V/s. Mercedes Benz India Ltd. & Ors., reported in IV(2009) CPJ 140 (NC). In the said case, joint inspection was carried out about defects of the vehicle. It was observed by Hon'ble National Commission that Research Institution for inspection of the vehicle if appointed with consent of both parties, it is not open and correct to raise issue of bias on the part of parties. We find that the facts of the said case are quite different and hence, that judgment is not in any way helpful to the opponents in the present matter.
20. Learned Advocate present for opponent No.2 has submitted authority in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. V/s. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr., reported in I (2006) CPJ 3 (SC). In the said case, there was complaint of improper functioning of clutch. Defect continued even on first service. Downing of engine is necessary to trace problem. The complainant objected, did not brought vehicle for aforesaid purpose. Here in the present case that is not the position. We have already referred above number of problems faced by the complainant on number of times which Page 15 of 18 CC/07/36 are documented as referred above. Apart from the fact, here in the present case the vehicle is with opponent No.1 and hence, even this authority is not helpful to the opponents in the present matter.
21. In view of above discussion, we find that there is sufficient material on record to accept contention of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the said car. Hence, we answer Point No.3 in the affirmative.
22. Point No.4 :- Opponent No.3/Insurance Company was added in the complaint on the application filed by opponent No.2. Thus, it is clear that complainant was not asking for adding Insurance Company as opponent No.3. Even after adding opponent No.3 in the complaint after the amendment order, no specific relief was asked against opponent No.3. Even otherwise, complaint is about manufacturing defects in the car and hence, there is no question of giving any compensation by opponent No.3/Insurance Company. Hence, we answer Point No.4 in negative.
23. Point No.5 (Refund) :- Complainant has claimed refund of amount paid for purchase of said car. In view of above discussion, we find that said prayer of the complainant is to be allowed. Hence, we answer Point No.5 in affirmative.
24. Point Nos.6&7 :- Complainant has claimed that opponent Nos.1&2 be directed to pay the complainant amount of interest which the complainant paid on the loan taken from ICICI Bank probably obtained for purchasing of said car. Complainant also claimed that opponent Nos.1&2 be directed to pay Rs.20,40,871/- as incurred by the complainant towards expenses for repairs of said defective car along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. We find that the interest on the loan amount obtained by the complainant for purchasing car cannot be granted. As far as amount Page 16 of 18 CC/07/36 incurred by the complainant on the repairs of car can be considered. However, we find that the complainant has also used said car for some period. So, instead of granting said amount of Rs.20,40,871/- we find it proper to grant interest on the purchase amount of the car which we have directed to refund to the complainant. So, complainant is entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.36,42,629/- from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 22/02/2007 till realisation instead of granting charges for repairs and interest of loan as claimed. Hence, we answer Point Nos.6&7 accordingly.
25. Point No.8 (Compensation) :- Complainant has claimed Rs.15 Lakhs as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant. It is a matter of record that the complainant has paid Rs.36,42,629/- for purchasing a luxurious car-Mercedes Benz, a world-class car. In spite of that, complainant suffered because of defects in the said car. We have already discussed above about defects in the said car and thus, it is clear that the complainant must have suffered mental agony because of such defective car and hence, complainant is certainly entitled for some compensation on account of mental agony suffered. However, we find that amount of Rs.15 Lakhs cannot be granted. We find that amount of Rs.2 Lakhs will be just and proper amount of compensation on account of mental agony. Hence, we answer Point No.8 accordingly.
26. Point No.9 :- In view of answers of Point Nos.1to8, consumer complaint deserves to be partly allowed against opponent Nos.1&2 only. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Consumer complaint is partly allowed against opponent Nos.1&2 with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) to be paid by the opponent Nos.1&2 to the complainant.Page 17 of 18
CC/07/36
2. Opponent Nos.1&2 are directed to refund purchase price of car of Rs.36,42,629/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Nine only) to the complainant.
3. Opponent Nos.1&2 are directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the purchase price of car of Rs.36,42,629/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Nine only) to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 22/02/2007 till realisation.
4. Opponent Nos.1&2 are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony suffered by the complainant.
5. Consumer complaint stands dismissed as against opponent No.3/ Insurance Company.
6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 28th April 2017.
[ P. B. Joshi ] PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER [ D. R. Shirasao] JUDICIAL MEMBER dd.
Page 18 of 18