MANU/CF/0188/2007

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI

Decided On: 17.09.2007

Appellants: Controls and Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.B. Shah, J. (President) and Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member

ORDER

M.B. Shah, J. (President)

1. The questions which arise for consideration in this case are - if one of the most luxurious brand of the car, namely, the Mercedez-Benz, which is represented as the World's finest automobiles built on a simple principal "even the best can get better'', gives trouble within the three months from the date of its purchase, would a consumer be satisfied by such a car? And, whether he is entitled to replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price?

2. As it is claimed that 'the Mercedez Benz is not just about building a safe car', but 'it is about making the road a safer place', in our view, the consumer/purchaser would not be satisfied with the said car, which requires repeated repairs, and the consumer is entitled to get replacement or refund of the purchase price of the car.

Contentions of the Complainant:

3. M/s.Controls & Switchgear Co. Ltd., has filed this complaint alleging that the two Mercedez-BENZ cars purchased by them are having manufacturing defects including over-heating of the center hump (which is uncured since purchase), and, therefore, prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to replace the vehicles of the same brand, or, in the alternative, refund the sum of Rs. 1,15,72,280/- with interest at the prevailing market rate from the date of the said payment till the date of its refund; and, to compensate the Complainant Company for the mental agony suffered as a result of the Opposite Parties' stubborn recalcitrance in attending to a palpable engineering defect of over heating.

4. It is the say of the Complainant that the two Mercedez-BENZ cars, i.e., DL-5CR-0333 and DL-9CV-5555 were purchased by the Complainant on 31.3.2003. In respect of vehicle No. DL-5CR-0333 it is pointed out that since 28.6.2003 the Complainant was writing letters to Opposite Party No. 1 for rectifying various defects, especially the one with regard to center hump heating, which has not been cured. On 2.7.2004, the Opposite Party No. 2 required the Complainant to keep the center hump under observation over a longer distance and report in case of any abnormalities. The Complainant vide his letter 3.12.2004 informed Opposite Party No. 1 that in response to the suggestion/observation of one Mr.B.Appeltauer, the representative of the Opposite Party No. 1, the Complainant had adjusted the vents of the air-conditioning and went to Haridwar. He did not observe any discomfort during the onward journey performed between 6.00 am to 10.30 am; but, while returning at 4.30 pm to 6.00 pm, the problem persisted.

5. In the said letter dated 3.12.2004 the Complainant also mentioned that the other Car bearing Registration No. DL9CV 5555 does not give any such problem. The relevant portion reads as under:

Along with my car, we brought another car for my brother under the registration No. DL9CV 5555. This car does not give any such problem. This was confirmed by my brother who was traveling with me in the car yesterday and who also found it extremely uncomfortable with the heating of the floor and the back. In fact, his camera lying in the pocket behind the armrest was heated to touch when he picked it up on arrival.

6. Thereafter, on 22.12.2004 the Opposite Party No. 2, the Dealer, in response to the letter of the Complainant dated 25.10.2004, informed him that they (Opposite Party No. 2) decided to replace the 'exhaust pipe', and, requested the Complainant to send the car bearing No. DL-5CR-0333 anytime suitable to the Complainant so that the work could be carried out. The Complainant states that the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to rectify the defect in the car, but extended warranty till 31.3.2006. Thereafter, on 24.1.2005, the Opposite Party No. 1 changed the 'exhaust pipe' and inserted an additional heat insulation between the propeller shaft and the tunnel of the underbody'. In spite of these changes, the vehicle could not be made defect-free.

7. The Complainant also submitted that the Opposite Party No. 1 has recalled 1.3 million cars, in other countries, i.e. in Europe, including SL Class, switch engines in some models and started providing two year full service warrantee to disgruntled owners. In this rega........