MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. REVATHI GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal challenges the order of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint no. 26 of 2015 whereby the appellant has been directed to replace the car purchased by respondent no.1 with another car of same/similar model and to take back the old car or, alternatively, to refund the full purchase price of Rs.42,30,000.00 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of invoice till realization and take the possession of the old car along with cost of Rs.20,000.00. The appellant is before us with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dtd. 23/9/2021 and to pass any order or directions as deemed fit. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record carefully. None appeared on behalf of the respondent on the date of argument, i.e., on 17/8/2023, even after a final notice to him dtd. 5/4/2023 which was served on the respondents. Hence, the respondents were proceeded ex parte. 4. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that respondent no.2, who is a dealer of the appellant had sold a Mercedes Benz CC 220 CDI BE car which chassis number WDD2040026L073919 and Engine number 6519113207203 on 30/9/2014 for a sum of Rs.42,30,000.00 to the respondent no.1. The vehicle experienced various defects such as in the display of navigation screen, pronounced drifting towards the left side and power steering wheel being very hard. The vehicle was taken on several occasions to the workshop of respondent no.2 and was attended to. The respondent approached the State Commission on the grounds that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects which were evidenced by the frequency of repairs that were required and the fact that the warranty of the vehicle was extended for the 4th year by the appellant as a gesture of good will. On contest, the State Commission relying on the decision of this Commission in OP No. 9 of 2006 dtd. 17/9/2007 in M/s Control and Switch Gear Co. Ltd., vs M/s Daimler Chrysler India Pvt., Ltd. and Ors., has held that : In the present case, we can say without hesitation that if the car is defective, may be, on one or other count but that would not give any satisfaction to the consumer who has spent large amount for its purchase. We are of the opinion that there is no provision in the CP Act that absolves the manufacturer of goods from the liability to compensate having sold defective goods. The fact remains that any person who buys a vehicle does so with an object that the same will provide comfort and peace of mind ' at lease for some time. However, if such a vehicle starts giving trouble from the very first day of purchase, then it is definitely an area of grave concern. Thus, the brand and luxury claims of opposite parties seems to be hollow as the complainant lost her peace of mind and suffered immense discomforts and harassment. The vehicle suffered from inherent defects warranting numerous change of parts/ repairs from time to time. Therefore, despite the contentions of the opposite parties having replaced parts under warranty and its claim of warranty clauses, the opposite parties had supplied a defective vehicle to the complainant and the consumer/ complainant is entitled to get replacement or refund of the purchase price of the car along with interest. [ Emphasis supplied ] 5. This order is impugned on the grounds that the liability of an automobile manufacturer only arises when an inherent manufacturing defect is duly proved by an expert opinion and is otherwise limited by the terms of the warranty. It is also contended that there was no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to impose cost or compensation for mere inconvenience without proving deficiency in service. It was submitted that the relationship of the appellant and respondent no.2 was that of Principal-to-Principal and hence, the appellant was not liable for any act of commission or omission on the part of the respondent no.2 (Dealer). The appellant has also contended that as per the law laid down in Chief Administrator, HUDA and Anr. Vs Shakuntla Devi (2017) 2 SCC 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: compensation could not be awarded in the absence of any loss or injury without establishing demonstratable negligence. Reliance was also placed in Maruti Udyog Ltd., vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr., AIR 2006 SC 1586 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: the obligation of the manufacturer of the vehicle under warranty was limited only to the extent of repair or replacement of any part found to be defective. On merits, it was argued that the vehicle had run over 56,815 kms as on 18/7/2019 and hence, it was evident that the vehicle was not defective. The order of the State Commission was stated to be arbitrary since no expert opinion as required under Sec. 13 (1) (c) of the Act had been brought on record and as such the order was stated to be per incuriam and was based on presumptions and surmises. It is also contended that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent no.1. The fact of the vehicle drifting to the left side was also stated to be attributable to rough and negligent driving which had not been appreciated by the State Commission according to the appellant, since no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant had been proven under Sec. 14 (1) (d) of the Act. The appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranveet Singh Bagga vs KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 1999 AIR SCW 22 wherein it has been held that: