OSL PRESTIGE PVT. LTD. Vs. NAVEEN NAYYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30th May 2018 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata ('the State Commission') in Complaint Case no. 952 of 2017.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a car BMW 7 Series from the appellant/ Opposite party on 02.02.2012 for a sum of Rs.68,26,529/- bearing registration no.WB 06J/4999, with a warranty of two years. During the warranty period the car was functioning normally. On 15.09.2016 the complainant brought the car to the service centre of the opposite party for regular servicing. The technicians found out certain defects in gear box of the car. The complainant left the said car with the service centre of the opposite party. The opposite party gave a service quote for R.10,20,813/-. It was claimed by the complainant that the defect was a manufacturing defect, therefore, he was not required to make any payment to the opposite parties. Later on another quote of Rs.7,61,138/- was sent after giving a discount of Rs.2,59,695/-. This communication was done via e-mail on 18.10.2016. After receiving the objection from the complainant, the opposite party again sent an e-mail dated 29.03.2017 and confirmed that they would bear the cost of transmission assembly replacement of Rs.5,52,564/- only and rest of the amount should be paid by the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party started avoiding the complainant and after several follow-ups the opposite party informed that they could only provide the service if the complainant pays for the service amounting to Rs.10,20,813/- after deducting cost of Rs.5,52,564/- which according to the complainant was an abnormal price. The complainant alleged that the car in question was lying in the service centre of the opposite party for approximately 126 days. Thereafter the complainant preferred a consumer complaint against the opposite party.

(3.) The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 30.05.2018 allowed the complaint and passed the following order: