Thrissur District Commission Holds Daimler India, Its Dealer Liable For Unfair Trade Practice

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a Bharat Benz 1617 Lorry from Autobahn Trucking (“Dealer”) for transporting vegetables. The lorry was manufactured by Daimler India (“Manufacturer”). Within 2 months of purchase, the lorry started having issues with pick-up, its PCU and AdBlue Motor. Even after the Dealer provided service to the lorry, the issues persisted. During this time, the Complainant suffered losses worth Rs. 1.5 Lakh due to decay of vegetables. Further, the low pickup exhibited by the lorry resulted in the loss of Rs. 1 Lakh due to overconsumption of diesel. The Complainant alleged manufacturing defects in the lorry and approached the Dealer. The Dealer assured the Complainant that the lorry would be sent to the Manufacturer for 20 days and the Complainant would receive a compensation of Rs. 7,500/- per day. When the lorry was sent for inspection, the Complainant received Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation.

Meanwhile, the Complainant also bought another such lorry from the Dealer by relying on the assurances given by the Dealer and the Manufacturer. However, the new lorry started exhibiting the same problems again. Therefore, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Manufacturer. The Manufacturer denied the presence of any manufacturing defects. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, Kerala (“District Commission”).

The Dealer contended that the Complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the lorry was being used for commercial purposes. Further, as the Complainant purchased the second vehicle, his claim of 'livelihood' was no longer valid. The issues with the lorry were attributed to the Complainant as he failed to maintain the required level of 'AdBlue' which led to the generation of error codes.

On the other hand, the Manufacturer contended that the malfunctioning attributed to the Complainant was not covered under warranty. Further, the payment of Rs. 1,30,000/- was made as a goodwill gesture while the vehicle was away for inspection. The Complainant also failed to substantiate the allegation of manufacturing defects using an expert's report.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission held that the Dealer and the Manufacturer failed to provide any substantial evidence to support their dispute over the Commission's territorial jurisdiction. Since they could not prove their claim, the District Commission found no reason to disbelieve the Complainant's assertions about the lorry's operations and related incidents within Thrissur. Thus, the District Commission concluded that it had the territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

The District Commission also addressed the Manufacturer's contention regarding the absence of an expert report. This argument was deemed irrelevant because the District Commission had already appointed a competent expert and obtained a report through an earlier order. Additionally, the Dealer and the Manufacturer disputed the Complainant's status as a consumer, alleging that the lorry was used for commercial purposes and that the Complainant had stakes in other businesses. The District Commission noted that under the Consumer Protection Act, a person who avails services exclusively for livelihood by means of self-employment is considered a consumer. The Complainant had affirmed under oath that he ran the business of transporting vegetables for his livelihood and had no other business. The Dealer and the Manufacturer failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Thus, the District Commission ruled in favour of the Complainant on this point.

Regarding the alleged manufacturing defect of the lorry, the Complainant argued that the payment of Rs. 1,30,000/- by the Manufacturer was an admission of the defect. However, the District Commission noted that the Complainant did not produce sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. The expert report indicated that the vehicle had low pick-up, which the Complainant attributed to a manufacturing defect. The Dealer and the Manufacturer claimed it was due to the Complainant's failure to maintain the necessary level of 'AdBlue'. The expert concluded that the lorry had a manufacturing defect in its after-treatment system for pollution control. Nonetheless, this conclusion was not empirically established. Both parties failed to provide the expert with adequate instructions or questions to properly investigate the alleged defect. Thus, the District Commission determined that the Complainant did not prove the presence of a manufacturing defect.

The District Commission also considered the Complainant's right to be informed about the lorry's quality under the Consumer Protection Act. The Dealer and the Manufacturer did not provide adequate instructions regarding the maintenance of 'AdBlue', crucial for the lorry's performance. This omission deprived the Complainant of essential information and constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Dealer and the Manufacturer. Given the Complainant's business of transporting perishable vegetables, the repeated malfunctions of the lorry caused significant financial loss, hardship, and damage to his business reputation. The District Commission ruled that the Complainant was entitled to compensation for these losses.

In conclusion, the complaint was partly allowed. The Dealer and the Manufacturer were jointly and severally directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Case Title: Sanjeev N.R. vs Bharat Benz and Anr.

Case No.: CC 494/18

Date of Order: April 30th, 2024