Could Not Prove Any Manufacturing Defect, NCDRC Dismisses Complaint Against BMW

Background

The Complainants purchased a BMW 730Ld of BMW 7-Series through a dealer at Chandigarh paying Rs.82 lacs. The car was purchased for the Managing Director of Complainant No.1. The car was labelled as a 'Zero Error Car' and a warranty of two years was extended. As per the Complainants, since the first day of purchase, the car started showing defects such as malfunctioning of the clock, improper stereo performance, cracking voice, shaking front left passenger seat, etc.

The Complainants informed the manufacturer about the defects in the car through a letter along with emails. According to the Complainants, the manufacturers admitted the inherent defects in the car through emails and also in the reply to the legal notice sent to them by the advocate for the Complainants. However, despite the admission, as per the Complainants, they were not offered any effective resolution to rectify the defects.

Since there was no resolution of disputes, the Complainants approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh, wherein the Opposite Parties were directed to rectify the defects in the car through a settlement agreement. Despite changing the seat of the car, the other defects remained allegedly unrectified leading in filing of another Complaint by the Complainants before State Commission Chandigarh. On the other hand, the dealer and the manufacturer refuted the allegations, contending that the car was properly repaired. Questioning the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission, the Opposite Parties submitted that since the value of the relief claimed in the Complaint crossed Rs. 1 crore, the State Commission could not entertain such Complaint.

The State Commission dismissed the Complaint stating that the same was devoid of merit.

Aggrieved from the order of dismissal, the Complainants appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Submissions of the Complainants:
The advocates for the Complainants (Appellants before National Commission) submitted that the car was purchased for personal use of the Managing Director of the complainant no. 1. Moreover, since the averments made regarding the personal use were not specifically denied, as per Order VIII Rule 3 C.P.C, it would be deemed that the averments were admitted by the manufacturer and the dealer. It was stated that the manufacturer and the dealer were required to rectify the manufacturing defects in the car as per the settlement agreement terms finalised by the State Commission in the first Complaint before the State Commission but the manufacturer had violated the same by not rectifying the defects. Referring to the technical report of 'SYMEO', the technical expertise in "Road Load Data Acquisition" and "Fatigue Testing" of components using servo hydraulic facility, it was argued that the same was not denied by the manufacturer nor was it sent for cross-checking to verify its authenticity, hence, confirming it to be accepted by the manufacturer. Furthermore, it was contended that since the car was manufactured in 2013 and sold in 2014, the Complainant had apprehensions that it was a used car considering the defects like malfunctioning of the clock, improper stereo performance, cracking voice / shaking front left passenger seat, etc.

To justify the contentions made, the Complainants relied on the decisions taken in Crompton Greaves Limited & Anr. Vs. Daimler Chrysler India Private Ltd. CC No. 51 of 2006 (NCDRC), V. Kishan Rao Vs Nikhil Super Specialist Hospital 2010 (5) SCC 513 and C N Anantharam vs M/s Fiat India Ltd Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 21178-21180 of 2009.

Submissions of the Opposite Parties:

The Advocate for the Manufacturer argued that the Complainants had defied the settlement agreement terms that were finalised in their first complaint before the State Commission. It was stated that the Complainants had agreed to having the issue of the seat fixed free of cost admitting that no other issues would be raised again. The Manufacturers further cited the case of M/s Radio Time vs Shri Lila Ram Bohra and Others (2012) NCDRC 437 wherein it was held that orders passed by the Fora below could not be challenged by a litigant even when the same were based on sound reasoning. Regarding the status of the Complainant No.1 as a consumer, the Manufacturers contended that the Complainants had not purchased the car solely for personal use.

Findings of the Commission

The National Commission observed that there was nothing to demonstrate if the car was purchased for personal use by Complainant no.2. Moreover, all the expenses incurred on the car were met by Complainant No.1 and Complainant No.2 did not spend any money indicating that the car was not for his personal use. Stating further that Complainant no. 2 was under no conditions entitled to receive a car as part of his remuneration, the Commission upheld the finding that the Complainants had not purchased the car for personal use and therefore, the Complainants could not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as per the Consumer Protection Act.

The Commission ultimately placing reliance on decisions in Sukhvinder Singh vs. Classic Automobile [2012] NCDRC 790, and Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Syed Hasan (2014 SCC Online NCDRC 659) and Ajay Sharma vs. Sanya Motors (2012 SCC Online NCDRC 2641) held that the Complainants could not prove the manufacturing defects and the report of a private agency, 'SYMEO' could not be accepted as it was not acknowledged by the Opposite Parties or the State Commission. Moreover, as per the decision in Rakesh Gautam v. M/s Sanghi Brothers (2010) 3 CPJ 105 (NC), the Report could not be accepted due to the lack of involvement by the opposite parties.

Observing that the complainants failed to prove any defect, the Commission held that no liability could be imposed on the manufacturer. Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: M/S. STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LTD. & ANR versus M/S. BMW INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Counsel for Complainants: MR. DEEPAK SABHARWAL, ADVOCATE WITH MS. HEMA SINGH, ADVOCATE

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: MR. DIWAKAR MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE (VC), MR. JAGVIR SHARMA, ADVOCATE

Click Here ToDownload Judgment/Order