“Compensation” Includes Compensation For Physical, Mental Or Emotional Suffering: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held T & T Motors liable for deficiency in service for refusing timely repair services while the product was still under warranty. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased a Mercedes Benz car from T & T Motors/dealer for Rs. 27,08,189. The car broke down during rainfall in Delhi and was sent for repair. Despite more than five repair estimates exceeding the car's value, the car was not delivered even after three months. The complainant's grievances to the dealer went unanswered. Alleging a manufacturing defect, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission of Delhi. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the dealer to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation for inconvenience and Rs. 50,000 as litigation costs. Consequently, the dealer appealed to the National Commission against the State Commission's order. Contentions of the Dealer The dealer argued that the State Commission failed to consider the circumstances preventing timely repairs, including delays in approvals and parts procurement, are beyond the dealer's control. The dealer further argued that they had offered a courtesy car to the complainant, which was declined, and asserted that repairs were completed and the vehicle was ready for delivery, with final delays due to insurance processing. The dealer maintained there was no deficiency in service and any compensation liability should rest with the manufacturer. Observations by the National Commission The National Commission observed that the State Commission appropriately addressed the complainant's status as a consumer and correctly found the dealer's service deficient. In reliance on Crompton Greaves Limited and Ors. Vs. Dailer Chrysler India Private Limited and Ors., the State Commission determined that consumers have the right to seek redress for deficient products or services. Furthermore, it was observed that the dealer's failure to justify the four-month delay in repairing the high-end car caused significant inconvenience and mental anguish to the complainant. The Supreme Court rulings in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital further supported the comprehensive understanding of “compensation” under consumer protection laws, including compensation for physical, mental, or emotional suffering. The commission held that, given these precedents, the State Commission's decision to award compensation and litigation costs to the complainants was justified. The delay in repairing the vehicle, despite it being under warranty, was unacceptable. The National Commission upheld the State Commission's order and dismissed the appeal. Case Title: M/S. T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. CJ Darcl Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: F.A. No. 725/2021

“Compensation” Includes Compensation For Physical, Mental Or Emotional Suffering: NCDRC

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

“Compensation” Includes Compensation For Physical, Mental Or Emotional Suffering: NCDRC

Ayushi Rani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers