Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh K C Gupta, President and Mrs Devinderjit Dhatt, Member Khushwant Singh Chatta - Complainant Versus Daimler Chrysler India (P) Ltd & Anr - Respondents
Complaint Case No.5 of 2004	Decided on 12.12.2005

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17- Car purchased by Complainant on 23-1-2002 had to be taken for repair several times - Claim for replacement of car or refund of its price and compensation - There did not however appear to be any latent or manufacturing defect as Respondent's application for examination of car by automobile expert in Engineering College was opposed by Complainant - No case could be said made out for replacement of car or refund of its price - It was deficiency in service - Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded in favour of Complainant. (Paras 14 to 21) Result: Complaint allowed partly. IMPORTANT POINT In case of frequent breakdown of a car, though defects could not necessarily be termed as manufacturing defect, it would be a case of deficiency in service entitling Complainant to some compensation. JUDGEMENT K C Gupta, President - Briefly stated facts are that the Complainant is resident of Chandigarh. He had purchased a Mercedes Benz Car on 23.1.2002 from Respondent No. 2 Registration number of the said car is HP-51-1681. The fuel used in the said car was always of high quality and the same was got filled from Sidhu Service Station, Sector-7, Chandigarh. He had taken all precautions strictly to maintain the car in accordance with instructions given in the Owner's Manual. It was next averred that on 20.10.2002, the car with mileage of 4990 kms broke down on its way to Pehowa. The Complainant had to tow the car to Chandigarh at dealer's workshop. He was charged Rs. 9,500/- for the repair of car and the Respondent No. 2 assured that there would be no defect or problem in future. But again on 21.6.2003, there was fault in AC cooling, rear light bulb and horn and he had to visit the workshop of the Respondent and had to spend Rs. 2,800/-.
2.	It was further pleaded that on 18.8.2003 there was fault of engine stalling. The mechanic of Respondents visited his house but could not make the car functional and the car had ultimately to be taken to the workshop where Rs. 8,266/- was charged from Complainant as price of fuel filter, Rs. 1,553/ - as labour charges including Rs. 1,000/- as visiting charges.
3.	It was next averred that Complainant had written letter dated 8.9.2003 calling upon the Respondents either to change the car or refund the purchase price. In response to the said letter, Respondent No. 2 replied that on both occasions, there was a fault of choking of fuel filter, which was replaced, and the second service of the car was due.
4.	It was further stated that on 30.9.2003, Respondent No. 2 carried out second service and charged Rs. 13,926/- for parts and lubricants and Rs. 4,185/- as labour charges vide bill dated 30.9.2003 and further charged Rs. 1,350/- as labour charges on 1.10.2003.
5.	It was also averred that the Complainant had served legal notice dated 6.10.2003, upon which Respondent No. 1 replied that it was in the process of collecting information and would revert to the Complainant with its reply at the earliest. Whereas, Respondent No. 2 sent a postal reply dated 14.11 .2003.
6.	It was further averred that the Complainant, by buying a Mercedes Benz car, had suffered mental and physical agony thrice within a span of less than a year. Besides, he had to part with handsome amount for replacement of parts and labour charges. He had spent a huge amount for purchasing the car for his comforts and not for mental suffering as well as physical agony. In fact, the Respondents had given him a faulty and defective car.
7.	With these allegations, the Complainant prayed that he was entitled to refund of price of the car or replacement of car with a new one or in the alternative a compensation of RS.10 lakhs in lieu of failure of service on the part of Respondents and for his physical as well as mental suffering. Interest @ 12% p.a. was also claimed. Respondents contested the complaint and filed written replies.
8.	Respondent No. 1 in its written reply stated that Respondent No. 2 was its authorised dealer and was inter alia responsible for sale and service of vehicles. It admitted that the Complainant purchased Mercedes Benz car from Respondent No. 2 on 23.1.2002 i.e. about three years ago. It further stated that the car manufactured by it in India was world-class car with reputation for safety, comfort, engineering precision, quality and standard. It next stated that it was subject to two years warranty and according to warranty terms, in the event it is found that customer's vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect during the period of 24 months' warranty from the date of sale invoice, then defective parts of the car are either repaired or replaced free of charge. However, Complainant's concerns such as AC cooling and light bulbs were found to be operational in nature and had been promptly attended to by Respondent No. 2 as evidenced by its letter dated 11.9.2003. It stated, that the fuel filter was found to be choked twice during the last two years and Respondent No. 2 had explained that impurity in the fuel used in the vehicle caused this problem. Since Mercedes Benz cars are high performance vehicles having several dynamic components, quality of fuel used had greater bearing in performance of the vehicle. It next stated that a Technical Specialist deputed by it carried out technical inspection of the car at the workshop of Respondent No. 2 on 17.11.2003, and found his car to be absolutely normal. It further stated that a frivolous, speculative and vexatious claim had been filed and, as such, it should be dismissed with costs under Section 26 of the Act.
9.	Respondent No. 2 in its reply stated that it was dealer of Respondent No. 1 and relationship between it and Respondent No. 1 was principal-to-principal basis. It further stated that Complainant purchased the Mercedes Benz car from it on 23.1.2002 subject to two years' warranty. According to warranty terms, in the event it is found that customer's vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect during warranty period, such part/parts is/are either repaired or replaced free of charge. It further stated that complaints of the Complainant were promptly attended to and the defects, which were operational in nature, were removed. It next stated that Complainant was acting in a very whimsical and arbitrary manner. A Technical Specialist had examined the car and found it to be absolutely normal. It denied other allegations and stated that the claim had been vexatiously lodged and as such complaint should be dismissed. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.
10.	We have heard Counsels for the Complainant, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, and carefully gone through the file.
11.	It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had purchased Mercedes Benz car from Respondent No. 2 on 23.1.2002 for about Rs. 37 lakhs. According to Respondents, Mercedes Benz cars are high performance vehicles having several dynamic components and the quality of fuel used has greater bearing on the performance of these vehicles.
12.	The detailed history of service rendered to the Complainant (customer) since purchase of vehicle is available on records.
13.	Therefore, during a period of about one year, car had broken down several times. Affidavit of Pushpa Salaria, Manager Legal & Secretarial of Respondent No. 2, which had been filed by way of rejoinder, states that Odometer of the car showed mileage as 20431 kms on 16.6.2004. On 20.10.2002, when first service was done, the odometer read as 4990 kms. Therefore, the car was constantly used, although, the use was not very large and was minimal. On 20.10.2002, the car with mileage of 4990 broke down on its way to Pehowa and Complainant had to tow the car to bring it to Chandigarh at Respondent No. 2's workshop and had to pay Rs. 9,500/- for the service of car and to get the defects removed. He had again on 21.6.2003 to spend Rs. 2,800/- for getting fault in AC cooling, rear light and horn removed. On 18.8.2003, there was fault in the engine as the same had stalled and the Complainant called mechanic of Respondent No. 2, who visited his house to make the car functional but he was unable to do so; therefore, the car was taken to workshop and the same was repaired. Respondent No. 2 charged Rs. 8,266/- as price of fuel filter and Rs. 1,553/- as labour charges including Rs. 1,000/- as visiting charges. He had further sent the car on 30.9.2003 for check up. Respondent No. 2 carried out second service and charged Rs. 13,926/- for parts -and lubricants and Rs. 4,185/- vide bill dated 30.9.2003 as labour charges, and further charged Rs. 1,350/- as labour charges on 1.10.2003. Thus, he had to incur Rs. 41,580/- in getting the car repaired or for carrying out service of the car.
14.	There does not appear to be any latent or manufacturing defect in the vehicle because the Respondents moved an application under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for sending it to the appropriate laboratory for knowing whether there is any manufacturing or latent defect in the car. There is order of the Commission dated of 9.3.2005 on file. The Complainant had filed objections to the application moved by the Respondents regarding examination of the vehicle by an appropriate laboratory. In view of the reply of Complainant, the Commission adjourned the application to be considered at the time of final arguments and to raise any presumption against the Complainant for his objecting to the examination of the vehicle by an appropriate laboratory. There is another order dated 10.11.2005, when another application was moved by the Respondents. The Complainant filed reply and stated that he was not prepared to send the vehicle for test drive. Again, an offer was given to him to get the vehicle examined from an automobile expert of Chandigarh Engineering College to know its present performance and also further to know whether there was any mechanical or manufacturing or latent defect in the engine but he declined to our suggestion to get the vehicle examined from an expert of Chandigarh Engineering department. In such circumstances, only presumption is that there is no manufacturing or latent defect in the engine of the car and for this reason he did not send the car for testing by the laboratory or Automobile Department of the Engineering College, Chandigarh. Thus, no case is made out for replacement of the car or refund of its price.
15.	The Complainant in reply to the interrogatories submitted by Respondent No. 1, stated in para 6 that every time car showed any trouble and was sent for repair to Respondent No. 2, it always took excuse that the fuel being used in the car was not pure one, which actually was never the case. Even AC cooling of the car was not effective and its pickup was also not up to the mark and further rear light bulb and horn showed problem, which could not be attributed to the poor quality of fuel. He had further stated that he had always used high quality fuel and got tank filled from Sidhu Service Station, Sector - 7, Chandigarh, which is a reputed petrol pump.
16.	According to admitted case of Respondent No. 1, once the AC of car was not working properly and further horns were not in order, the engine warning appeared on instrument cluster and car stopped during drive. Further, there was electrical short circuit and, on two occasions, fuel filter was replaced. Therefore, it shows that there was some defect, may be operational.
17.	It is true that legitimate concerns of the Complainant were attended to but the Respondent No. 2 charged him heavily. Complainant had purchased the vehicle by spending a huge amount of Rs. 37 lakhs with the hope that it would give him trouble-free service for a number of years because in India, Respondent No. 1 is known for manufacturing world class Mercedes Benz cars with reputation for safety, comfort, engineering precision, quality and standard but these defects occurred in short time belied the reputation of the company as well as the Mercedes car. In these circumstances, in order to maintain reputation of Respondent No. 1 as well as of the car. It was required on behalf of Respondent No. 2 to attend to the defects and repair the car to the satisfaction of the Complainant without any charges because the Complainant had purchased the car by spending huge amount for his comfort and not for harassment and mental agony and not that by purchasing a high performance car, he would invite trouble.
18.	It is no fault of the Complainant if the fuel filter is found to be choked twice because even if some adulteration is made in petrol, there was no equipment for the Complainant to know that it was adulterated. He on his part took petrol from the reputed petrol pump and if some defect is found in the petrol, then it is not his fault. Moreover, it is not necessary that fuel filter was found to be choked due to petrol adulteration. It could be due to some other reasons also.
19.	Counsel for Respondent No. 2 contended that it was a high performance luxury car, which required proper maintenance, upkeep and use of quality fuel, but the Complainant had not kept it properly. In our opinion, contention of Learned Counsel of Respondent is not tenable. The person who had spent Rs. 37 lakhs on purchasing car would not keep the car negligently or would not use poor quality fuel.
20.	The affidavit of Neeraj Ratti, Automobile Engineer of Respondent No. 2 that the car choked due to problem in the filter as a result of sub-standard fuel being used and that the Complainant did not get the vehicle regularly serviced as per instructions of owner's manual, did not appeal to the reason. It was not the earlier stand of the Respondent that Complainant did not bring the vehicle for regular service as per instructions of the manufacturer.
21.	Counsel for Respondent No. 2 next contended that the Complainant had filed a frivolous, speculative and vexatious claim, which was liable to be dismissed with costs as provided under Section 26 of the Act. For this contention, he has relied upon the authority of Morgan Stanley v. Kartik Das in which it was observed that the tendency of foisting a speculative and vexatious claim should be discouraged by the Consumer Forum. There is no dispute about it, but the present claim is not speculative or vexatious. Respondents have failed to give satisfactory service to the Complainant which was required of them as the vehicle was supposed to be high performance vehicle and it should not have broken down several times. Complainant must have suffered mental agony and harassment due to breakdown of the car on several occasions. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of Respondents. For this purpose, Respondents are liable to pay compensation. Consequently, we hold that payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering and for getting the car repaired by making payment is enough.
22.	Hence, the complaint is accepted with costs and Complainant is awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against the Respondents, which should be paid within two months. If not paid, it will carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment. Costs are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. Respondents will pay the amount jointly and severally.