Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S Darcl Logistics & Anr. vs Mercedes Banz India & Anr. on 5 May, 2021

        IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
                         COMMISSION

                                       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 12.03.2021
                                    JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 05.05.2021

                              COMPLAINT NO. 584/2013

     IN THE MATTER OF

     CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD. & ANR                              ....COMPLAINANTS

                                          VERSUS

     MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR. ...OPPOSITE PARTIES

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA                                       SEHGAL
     (PRESIDENT)
     HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)

     Present: Sh. Manu Beri, Counsel for the Complainant.
              Ms. Rabiya Thakur, Counsel for OP-1.
              Counsel for OP-3.

     PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
            PRESIDENT
                                    JUDGMENT

[Via Video Conferencing]

1. The present complaint has been filed before this commission by CJ Darcl Logistics Ltd. and Mr. Vineet Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as 'complainants') against Mercedes Benz India Private Limited and T & T Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'opposite parties') and has prayed the following reliefs:

a) Direct the opposite parties to replace the defective vehicle i.e. 'Mercedes Benz' C fund the amount of Rs. 29,00,000/- to the CC 584/13 CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD. & ANR. VS. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR. Page 1 of 7 complainant which was paid by him towards the cost/price of "the car in question a model bearing registration "HR26 BW 0081" with a new vehicle having the same specifications, or refund the entire sale consideration being Rs. 27,081,89/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 26.11.2012 till actual date of payment;

b) Direct the opposite parties to compensate the complainant, on account of indulging in unfair trade practices, quantified at rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only);

c) Direct the opposite parties to compensate the complainant for the harassment, suffering and mental agony undergone by him on account of deficiency in service by the opposite parties, quantified at Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only);

d) Award costs of the present litigation in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties;

e) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the complainant no. 1 purchased a 'Mercedes Benz C 220' car from opposite party np. 2 in November 2012 from the opposite party no. 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 27,08,189/- for the personal use of complainant no. 2, being Vice President of the company. On 20.07.2013, the said car broke down during rainfall in Delhi and was sent to opposite party no. 3 for repair. However, till the filing of this complaint, the complainants received more than five estimates for repair of the said car from the opposite parties, which in total amounted to more than the value of the car. Moreover, the said car was not delivered by the opposite parties even after the lapse of more CC 584/13 CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD. & ANR. VS. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR. Page 2 of 7 than 3 months. The complainants raised the said grievances to the opposite parties through various e-mails, but were of no avail.

3. Alleging manufacturing defect in the said vehicle, which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, the complainants approached this commission.

4. The Opposite parties contested the present case and contended that the complainants are not consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the said car was purchased by the company for its Vice Present and the same amounts to commercial purpose. The Counsel for the Opposite parties further contended that the said vehicle was used in violation of the instructions contained in Owner's manual and therefore, it is due to negligence of the complainant no. 2 that the said vehicle broke down on 20.07.2013.

5. The counsel for the Opposite parties contended that the delay in repairing occurred due to late approval by the Insurance Company. He further contended that the opposite parties had provided prompt and required services to the complainants and therefore, there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

6. The complainants filed the rejoinder rebutting the contentions raised by the Opposite parties and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are duly filed by the both the parties.

7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused through the material on record.

COMPLAINANTS- CONSUMER OR NOT?

8. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Crompton Greaves Limited and Ors. vs. Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited CC 584/13 CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD. & ANR. VS. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR. Page 3 of 7 and Ors. reported in IV (2016) CPJ 469 (NC), wherein the National commission held as under:-

"4. Going by the dictionary meaning, a car or for that matter any goods obtained and the services hired or availed by a company can be said to have been obtained or hired or availed for a commercial purpose, only if the said goods or services are intrinsically connected with, or related to the business or commerce in which the company is engaged. The acquisition of the goods or the hiring or availing of services, in order to bring the transaction within the purview of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, should be aimed at generating profits for the company or should otherwise be connected or interwoven with the business activities of the company. The purpose behind such acquisition should be to promote, advance or augment the business activities of the company, by the use of such goods or services. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works (supra), it is not the value of the goods but the purpose for which the goods are brought or put to use, which is relevant to decide whether the goods were obtained for a commercial purpose or not. The same would be the position, where services are hired or availed by a company. If the business activities of a company cannot be conveniently undertaken without the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by a company, such purchase or hiring/availing as the case may be, would be for a commercial purpose, because the objective behind such purchase of goods or hiring or availing of the services would be to enable the company to earn profits by undertaking and advancing its business activities.

5. If a car or other goods are purchased or the services are hired or availed by a company for the personal use of its directors or employees, the purpose behind such acquisition is not to earn profits or to advance the business activities of the company. The purpose is to make certain facilities and amenities available to the directors and employees of the company as a part of the incentive offered to them by the company, as a reward or remuneration for the work which they are expected to perform for the company. It is not as if a company cannot run its business CC 584/13 CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD. & ANR. VS. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR. Page 4 of 7 without providing such facilities and amenities to its directors and employees. It is not necessary for the business of the company, to provide such facilities and amenities to its directors and employees. Providing such facilities and amenities only motivates them to perform their work in an efficient and congenial environment, besides serving as an incentive aimed at eliciting better performance. The company does not earn profit merely by making a car or certain other goods or services available to its directors and employees. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that such goods are purchased or the services are hired or availed by the company for a commercial purpose."

9. Relying on the above settled law, we hold that the complainants are consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the said car was purchased for the personal use of the complainant no. 2 and the purpose behind such purchase was not to earn profits or to advance the business activities of the company. Therefore, the contention raised by the opposite parties that the complainants are not consumer holds no merit and hence dismissed.

DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE

10. The fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question on 26.11.2012 from opposite party no. 2 is not in dispute from the material on record. It is further clear from the record that the said vehicle broke down on 20.07.2013 and was taken to the garage of the opposite party no. 2 on the same day.

11. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the said car was delivered by the opposite party no. 2 to the complainants after around 4 months from the date of the incident i.e. 20.07.2013. It is evident from the material before us that the opposite party no. 2 raised a bill of Rs. 10,51,565/-, which was paid by the insurance company but the complainants had to pay Rs. 12,565/- towards repair.

12. The opposite parties have failed to show any documentary evidence to this commission which shows that the car broke down on 20.07.2013 due to the negligence on the part of complainants or due to the violation of instructions contained in Owner's manual. Mere bald statement of the opposite parties will not justify their action of delivering the said vehicle to the complainants after 4 months. Therefore, we are in consonance with the contention of the complainants that the said car suffers from some manufacturing defects which were suppressed by the opposite parties.

13. It is evident from the record before us that the vehicle in question was under warranty at the relevant time and some major defect was there that took 4 months for the opposite party no. 2 to resolve the issue. In our opinion, therefore, the complainant no. 2 was put to great inconvenience and remained without a vehicle for 4 months. There is no denying of the fact that the complainant no. 2 was at senior position and was the Vice President of the complainant no. 1.

14. Accordingly, we deem it proper that the complainants must get compensated for the deficient acts of the opposite party no. 2 and therefore, we direct the opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for inconvenience, mental agony and harassment faced by the complainants and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs within three months from today.

15. In case the Opposite Party no. 2 fails to pay the aforesaid amount within three months from today, the entire amount is to be paid with an interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date of the present judgment till the actual realization of the amount.

16. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

17. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

18. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER Pronounced On: 05.05.2021 CC 584/13 CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LTD. & ANR. VS. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR. Page 7 of 7