Panchkula District Commission Holds Mahindra & Mahindra, Its Authorized Dealer Liable For Failure To Rectify Voice Recognition Issues Of Car's Infotainment

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a Mahindra XUV 500 from the authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. The car had operational issues such as noisy wipers and driver-side door glass. Further, features such as phone and audio streaming were non-functional and there were issues with the 'infotainment' system of the car. During calls, there were certain unspecific additional sounds.

Despite repeated attempts to address these problems, including sending the car for inspection and contacting the local authorized dealer, no satisfactory resolution was provided. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Mahindra & Mahindra and its authorized dealer.

In response, Mahindra & Mahindra argued that it merely operated on a principal-to-principal basis. Further, there was a lack of transparency on the Complainant's part, as he concealed the fact that the car was involved in an accident. Furthermore, the Complainant misrepresented minor issues, particularly related to the 'infotainment' system, as major manufacturing defects, seeking an unjustifiable vehicle replacement. The warranty-covered issues were promptly addressed, and the Complainant was educated on maximizing the infotainment system's capabilities.

Similarly, the authorized dealer argued that the vehicle was sold and serviced to the Complainant's satisfaction. It argued that no defects were resembling those claimed by the Complainant, and he didn't lodge any complaints regarding the infotainment system. It maintained that it consistently provided satisfactory services and rectified any issues brought to its attention by the Complainant.

Observations by the District Commission:

The Complainant raised four operational issues, starting with noisy wipers, driver-side door glass, the non-functionality of phone and audio streaming features, and issues with the infotainment system. The District Commission noted that all issues, except those related to the infotainment system, were resolved by the authorized dealer.

The District Commission further observed that the Complainant brought up concerns regarding the infotainment system approximately eight months after purchasing the vehicle. The email correspondence between the Complainant and Mahindra & Mahindra representatives revealed discussions about the limitations of the infotainment system's voice recognition capability through Bluetooth.

The District Commission found that despite attempts by Mahindra & Mahindra and its dealer, they couldn't improve the infotainment system's voice recognition via Bluetooth. Additionally, they didn't provide any evidence that the buyer was informed about the system's limited voice recognition abilities before purchasing the vehicle. As a result, the District Commission held both Mahindra & Mahindra and its dealer responsible for deficiency in service.

Regarding the relief sought by the Complainant for the replacement of the vehicle, the District Commission declined this request since no defects were alleged in the vehicle's functioning apart from those related to the infotainment system.

Therefore, the District Commission directed Mahindra & Mahindra and its dealer to pay a sum of Rs. 40684.50/- to the Complainant on account of compensation for deficient services about the infotainment system of the car. They were also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.