State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Audi India vs Munish Kumar Aggarwal on 10 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/132/2024
AUDI INDIA
PRESENT ADDRESS - SILVER UTOPIA 4TH FLOOR CARNIVAL GRACIOUS ROAD CHAKALA
ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI,HARYANA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL
PRESENT ADDRESS - E21 INDUSTRIAL AREA YAMUNANAGAR HARYANA ,HARYANA.
AUDI KARNAL
PRESENT ADDRESS - KANISH MOTOR PVT. LTD. 113/12,MILESTONE 1, BPO MADHUBAN
KARNAL,HARYANA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER
MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
SH. MANISH JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SH. MANAN JAIN, COUNSEL FOR
THE APPELLANT.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
SH. HARISH BANSAL, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1. SH. S.R. BANSAL,
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
DATED: 10/12/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 25.10.2023 Date of final hearing: 10.12.2025 Date of Order: 10.12.2025 First Appeal No.1234 of 2023 IN THE MATTER OF:-
Munish Kumar Aggarwal, aged 51 years, S/o Sh. Yash Pal, Proprietor of Aggarwal Timber Products, E-21, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
...Appellant Versus
1. Audi Karnal, Kanish Motors Pvt. Ltd., 113/12, Milestone, 1, BPO Badhuban, Karnal, through its General Manager.
2. Audi India having its registered office at Silver Utopia, 4th Floor, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai.
.....Respondents CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER.
Present:- Sh. Harish Bansal, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. S.R. Bansal, counsel for the respondent No. 1.
Sh. Manish Jain, Senior Advocate with Sh. Manan Jain, counsel for the respondent No.2.
Date of Institution: 01.02.2024 Date of final hearing: 10.12.2025 Date of Order: 10.12.2025 First Appeal No.132 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF:-
Audi India (A Division of Skoda and Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.) Silver Utopia, 4th Floor, Carnival Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400099 through Mr. Shailesh Bhardwaj, Chief Manager-Legal.
...Appellant Versus
1. Munish Kumar Aggarwal, S/o Sh. Yash Pal, Proprietor of Aggarwal Timber Products, E-21, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
2. Audi Karnal, Kanish Motors Pvt. Ltd., 113/12, Milestone, 1, B.P.O. Madhuban, Karnal, through its authorized person.
.....Respondents CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER.
Present:- Sh. Manish Jain, Senior Advocate with Sh. Manan Jain, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Harish Bansal, counsel for respondent No. 1.
Sh. S.R. Bansal, counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
By this order; above two cross appeals are being disposed off. In both appeals; legality of order dated 13.09.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (In short "District Commission") has been questioned separately.
2. Complainant purchased AUDI Q7 for Rs.82,75,000/- vide bill dated 03.01.2016 and got it registered in his name vide registration No.HR-02AJ-0475. However, shortly after its purchase the car started experiencing various snags. First of all, AC pillar of the car stopped functioning, just after one week of its purchase and even wipers of the same also came out when it was being used in running. The sun-roof also stopped working smoothly. Complainant immediately brought these defects to the knowledge of OP No.1 upon which frame of sun-roof was greased and wiper of the car was changed. But to his utter surprise and shock, the problem in sun roof of the car was not resolved as it still did not work softly. Faced with this situation complaining number of time appraised the OPs about these persisting defects in the car, but instead of taking him seriously, OPs took it casually assuming that defects being minor in nature. The breaking system of the car totally collapsed in running car on 25.10.2016. He immediately reported the incident to OP No.2 upon which car was taken to Chandigarh workshop for repair and after doing necessary repair, OPs told him that they had repaired the faulty breaking system and assured him that the defect had been removed completely. However, its break system again collapsed on 18.04.2017. He reported the defect to OPs, upon which they again took the car to the workshop for his inspection and to remove the defect and after some days handed over the car back to him by saying that the defect had been removed. But again on 18.11.2017, the breaking system of the car collapsed. Sh. Neeraj Tyagi, service head of the OPs visited the complainant after the incident of 18.11.2017 and complainant apprised him the situation arises out of persistent collapse of breaking system of his car and requested him to replace the first car with new one. After negotiation, Mr. Neeraj Tyagi offered replacement of the first car with new Model of AUDI Q7, on additional payment of Rs.7 lacs more plus registration charges of Rs.4,50,000/-. After due negotiation complainant paid Rs.11.5 lacs as difference of price between the old model car and new model car plus registration charges and got warranty of new car extended from two to five years On 09.02.2018, new car stood delivered to him, which was got registered on 01.03.2018 vide registration No.CH-01BR-0475. After about one month of its purchase, even the new car developed various snags i.e. non-functioning of 4 zone climate control, harsh sound coming out of the car doors, low engine oil and dysfunctional sunroof etc. Complainant immediately, brought all the defects in the notice of OP No.1, who arranged service of new car on 16.03.2018, where problem regarding door sound was resolved and to sort out other defects, the new car was taken to service centre and Rs.1,300/- charged from him for oil top up. OPs told him that other defects in the car could not be removed as one of the part of new car which was to be replaced was not available in the service centre and order for the same had already been placed and delivery was expected within 15 days from Germany to India. On 12.04.2018, the new car was again picked up by OPs from his residence for replacing the part. On 15.04.2018, the new car was taken to Gurugram for calibration, however this exercise did not solve the issue, whereas OPs insisted upon complainant that all the defects had been removed. Thereafter, sunroof the new car did not work, smoothly, even for a single day and the same was giving harsh and unpleasant noise in the cabin, despite its greasing. Due to collapsing of drive system of the new car, all of sudden, it stopped picking up or accelerating the speed, the moment driver tried to speed it up, while overtaking another vehicle going ahead of it and which nearly resulted in head on collision with another vehicle. The defects were not removed by the opponents, despite taking the same to service station number of time. The new car is parked in the workshop of the OPs since 20.08.2020 due to total failure of the drive system, but the engineer of the manufacturing company could not diagnose the defects in drive system of the new car for almost one month.
3. Upon notice, OP No. 1 raised contest. In its written statement, it is submitted that the dispute raised in the complaint, is not a consumer dispute, being the car is registered in the name of Aggarwal Timber Products, 449-P, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh. Only the District Commission at Karnal or at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The car is ready since 14.09.2020 in the workshop of OP and this fact has been mentioned by the opponent in reply dated 08.01.2021 to legal notice of the complainant dated 09.12.2020. Complainant has not made any efforts to collect the car since 14.09.2020, although the OP No. 1 had sent so many emails to him about new car on replacement of his first car and it also insisted for parking charge in the sum of Rs.1500/- per day. Complainant is having two three vehicles in the name of Timber Industry and is not interested to have the delivery of new car from the workshop of the OP No. 1 since 14.09.2020. He himself had given one undertaking-cum-satisfaction note on 09.02.2018 and separate undertaking also on 09.02.2018, while purchasing 2018 model car. These documents were duly understood and signed by the complainant and without any objection. A delivery note, check list and invoice qua the new car were duly signed by him, but all these facts were concealed by the complainant. There was no defect in the car. Complainant purchased first car in the year 2016 which was used extensively, was in the name complainant mentioning in the address of his residence and thereafter, he purchased new car in the year 2019 after enjoying a huge discount of Rs.7,07,000/-. The old car with new one was never replaced nor offered. The car was received for breakdown on 20.08.2020, but this fact was not disclosed and the car was ready on 14.09.2018 and since then, its representative had been sending various mails and continued upto 08.06.2021. The first car (defective car) was not sold by the OP No.1 to Solitaire Estate Ltd. On purchase of second car, confirmation letter dated 21.02.2018 was also sent to the Transport Commissioner, Chandigarh as the car was financed by ICICI Bank. The complainant had not visited the OP No.1 on 16.03.2018. No question of defect in sunroof of the new car was ever told because, the sunroof problem had told by the complainant on 31.10.2019 after the first accident on 12.08.2019 carried by AUDI Chandigarh. The new car was attended for normal jobs on 12.04.2018. The complainant had also taken accidental claim from AUDI Chandigarh, firstly on 12.08.2019, when the new car had covered his mileage 18464 KM and secondly, on 28.01.2020, when the new car had covered mileage upto 24896 KM. As such warranty clause came to an end, but this fact was also not disclosed by the complainant. The new car was received in the workshop on 21.08.2020 for some jobs and as per job card by that time, the new car had covered mileage 28547 KM and it was brought for malfunctioning of light, sunroof noise, low pickup and engine light glowing and accordingly, the OP No.1 had sent email on 21.08.2020 at 1:28 and second mail dated 24.07.2020 to wait for some time, as the vehicle job (new car) was in progress, because the parts were not received from the manufacturer and it was further informed, that once the parts were received by the OP No.1, it will update, accordingly and accordingly, the car was made ready by 14.09.2020 and since then, number of emails were sent to the complainant asking him to collect the vehicle. There was no negligence or deficiency in service and practice of unfair trade practices on the part of OP No.1.
4. However present appellant then OP No.2 failed to appear, despite notice and was proceeded against ex-parte by learned District Consumer Commission vide order dated 22.11.2021.
5. Parties to lis led evidence; oral as well as documentary. On analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide order dated 13.09.2023, by allowing complaint has directed OPs to pay Rs.82,07,000/- as per invoice as the cost of replaced car (new car) with interest @7% per annum from the date 21.08.2020 till actual payment along with punitive damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant, to compensate him in all heads, within two months from the date of order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, against order dated 13.09.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission; complainant, as well as, OP No.2/manufacturer have questioned its legality through their separately filed appeals, as detailed in title of this judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. With their able assistance; record too has been perused.
8. Learned counsel for appellant-complainant while praying for enhancement of compensation has urged that there was gross deficiency on part of OPs in not removing the defects of the car and in not refunding the cost price of the car in question, which caused wrongful loss to the complainant. Complainant was entitled to refund of total cost of the car along with interest @9% per annum but somehow or the other learned District Consumer Commission has awarded a meager interest which should be enhanced.
9. Learned counsel appearing for manufacturer/OP No. 2 (appellant in F.A. No. 132 of 2024) has urged that complainant has no led any evidence in the form of expert opinion/report and job card to prove his case regarding manufacturing defects in the car. Complainant has suppressed the material fact that he had taken accidental claim of car on 12.08.2019 and then on 28.01.2020. When the car had covered 28,547 Kms within approx. 2 years and 6 months, if there had been any manufacturing defect in the car, same would not have run for about 2½ years and covered almost 29,000 kms. On these submissions it is urged that impugned order is unsustainable.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has urged that respondent No. 2 is dealer of Audi India/ appellant. Respondent No. 2 has removed all the defects in the said car as and when reported by the complainant and there is no manufacturing defect in the said car.
11. Admittedly, first car was purchased by complainant on 03.01.2016 in which complainant alleged defects and OPs have failed to resolve the problem in the car, said car was replaced by OPs with new car during period of warranty, which was extended upto 5 year. The complainant pointed out the defects of harsh sound from the doors, low engine oil and dysfunctional sun roof etc. also in the new car following which it was brought to the workshop of OP on 21.08.2020 with the problem of malfunctioning of light, sunroof noise, low pickup and engine light glowing but these defects could not be removed due to non-availability of the parts. OP No.1/respondent No.2 in its written statement has admitted that the parts were not available and it informed the complainant that once the parts will be received, it will inform the complainant. The car was made ready on 14.09.2020. Once, the respondent No. 2/OP No. 1 in its written statement has admitted various defects in the car, there was negligence on the part of OPs in not removing the same. On account of above discussion, this Commission is of the opinion that appeal filed by Audi India/appellant (F.A. No. 132 of 2024) does not carry any substance. Even the appellant failed to contest the complaint as such which also indicate that this appellant did not have any legitimate explanation to offer about all these defects in the luxury car purchased by complainant after spending such a huge amount. All the issues which arose out of objections raised by contesting opposite party have duly been dispelled by the learned District Consumer Commission. As such negligence and deficiency in service has been rightly imputed against OPs through impugned order dated 13.09.2023 and this Commission does not notice any fallacy in it. First Appeal No. 132 of 2024 filed by OP No. 2/Audi India being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
12. Complainant in his appeal has prayed to grant him suitable compensation and interest. This Commission is of opinion that complainant has been adequately compensated by learned District Consumer Commission through impugned order dated 13.09.2023. Appeal filed by complainant (F.A. No. 1234 of 2023) is accordingly dismissed.
13. Statutory amount of Rs.51,31,707/- deposited by appellant-Audi India, while filing its appeal (F.A. No. 132 of 2024) be refunded to appellant (Audi India), after due identification and verification, as per rules and on expiry of period meant for further appeal/revision, if any.
14. Application(s) pending, if any in both appeals stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. Original copy of this judgment be attached with First Appeal No.1234 of 2023 and certified copy thereof be attached with First Appeal No. 132 of 2024.
16. Copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties, free of cost, as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. This judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
17. Files of both appeals be consigned to record room.
10th December, 2025 S.C. Kaushik S.P. Sood
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
D.K.
..................
S . P . SOOD
JUDICIAL MEMBER
..................
SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK
MEMBER