NCDRC Sets Aside State Commission’ Order Directing Mercedes To Replace The Car
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra along with AVM J. Rajindra as a member, recently allowed Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against a State Commission's order. The State Commission had directed Mercedes to replace a defective car with a similar model or refund the purchase price, and pay interest to the consumer who complained...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra along with AVM J. Rajindra as a member, recently allowed Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against a State Commission's order. The State Commission had directed Mercedes to replace a defective car with a similar model or refund the purchase price, and pay interest to the consumer who complained about car defects. The State Commission’s decision was based on the consumer’s expectation of comfort and peace when buying a vehicle. However, Mercedes argued that they could only be held liable if an expert proved an inherent manufacturing defect or when the warranty covered these defects.
The National Commission allowed the appeal by Mercedes (Appellant), stating that there was no conclusive evidence of “inherent manufacturing defects” because no expert opinion was presented, thereby setting aside the State Commission’s order.
Brief Facts
In this case, Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant), a car manufacturer, appealed against an order of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The order directed them to either replace the car bought by Mrs. Revathi (Respondent No. 1) with a similar one, or refund the full purchase price with interest.
The issues began when Adishwar Auto Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., a car dealer (Respondent no. 2), sold a Mercedes Benz to Mrs. Revathi in 2014. The car had several issues, including problems with the navigation system, drifting to the left, and a hard power steering wheel. Mrs. Revathi argued that these issues indicated inherent manufacturing defects, and the warranty was extended as a goodwill gesture.
The State Commission ruled in favor of Mrs. Revathi, emphasizing that when consumers buy a vehicle, they expect peace and comfort. The appellant, however, argued that their responsibility could only be proven with expert evidence of manufacturing defects or when these defects were covered by the warranty. Mercedes India also argued that no provision allowed for compensation without proving a service deficiency. They also claimed that their relationship with the car dealer (Respondent no. 2) was one of 'Principal-to-Principal' (like that of two independent parties) meaning they were not responsible for the dealer's actions.
To support their arguments, Mercedes India referred to the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr (AIR 2006 SC 1586) where the Supreme Court held:
“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.”
Observations of the National Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that no expert opinion was presented to prove that the car had inherent manufacturing defects. They noted that the vehicle had covered a substantial distance (56,815 kms) and the issues had been addressed within the three-year warranty period. Since no deficiency in service had been established and the requirement of an expert opinion under Section 13(1) (c) had not been met, the State Commission's finding of inherent manufacturing defects could not be supported. As a result, the NCDRC set aside the State Commission's order.
Case Title: Mercedes Benz India Private Limited vs. Smt Revathi Giri & Ors.
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Nemo