TECHNO MUKUND CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Complaint Petition has its genesis in the transaction of purchase of a Mercedes Benz car of E 250 D model by the Complainant, M/s Techno Mukund Constructions on 5.9.1998, from Opposite Party-2, M/s Trans Cars India (P) Ltd, Chennai. The case of the Complainant is that shortly after this purchase, he was shocked to find "bubbles all over the body of the car and discolouration on the doors and rear hatch back. In fact, the paint had peeled off on the hatch back. Further the tape recorder in the car was malfunctioning. The complainant was shocked and surprised to notice such flaws and defects which were unheard of in a premium car."

(2.) Rectification done by OP-2 was not to the satisfaction of the Complainant, who then wrote to OP-1, M/s Mercedes Benz, India Ltd, Pune on 21.1.1999. More correspondence and more measures to rectify the defects, followed. The Complainant claims that in the mean while he came to learn from "reliable sources that the car delivered to them as a new car was in fact a used car which had met with an accident necessitating complete repairs and painting." He therefore asked the OPs to replace the car with a new one. According to the complainant, in his letter 11.4.1999 addressed to opposite party No.1 he accused the company of delivering a used car, which had met with an accident and for palming off the same as a new car to the Complainant. A month later, he received a letter from opposite party No.1 dated 10.5.1999, wherein it was categorically admitted that the car sold to the complainant was in fact used as demo car by the second opposite party. However, the letter also stated that the Complainant was aware of this fact.

(3.) It is also alleged by the Complainant that the OPs have not registered the vehicle nor had they handed over the relevant documents required for the same. In short, the case of the Complainant is that having paid a purchase price of Rs.27,49,000/- he was cheated by the supplier palming off a used, defective and an accidented vehicle as a new one. Therefore, it is claimed as a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for which he has sought replacement of the car by a new one along with a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs.