Delhi State Consumer Commission Directs BMW India To Pay A Hefty Compensation For Deficiency In Service

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Ms. Pinki and Ms. Bimla Kumari as members directed BMW India Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2) to pay the whole purchasing amount of the car that is Rs. 26,26,462/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service with an interest of 6% p.a from the date of payment till date of the judgement. Failing to do so until 23.01.2023, an interest rate of 9% will be calculated from the date on which the car was purchased. The commission also directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony to complainant, Rs. 50,000 for litigation costs, Rs. 1,09,871/- as maintenance cost and Rs.35,000/- for tyre replacement along with Rs. 51,000/- and Rs. 42,280/- as insurance amount for second and third year respectively. The complainant purchased BMW1 Series 118d Car from an authorised dealer (Opposite Part No.2) and entered into a retail finance agreement with BMW Financial Services for loan amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- @ 10% p.a and made a down payment of Rs.11,74,460/- which included one advance EMI paid on 20th October 2014 and a sum of Rs. 2,26,718/- was paid as interest by complainant no.2 on the said loan amount. After using the car for 5 months the complainant observed a loud squeaking sound while applying brakes and resultantly the car in question was kept in the workshop of 10 days. However, the problem could not be solved even after repairs. Later the complainant wrote emails communicating about the problem and the car was again kept at the workshop for repairs. Later it was informed that the front wheels if the car are completely jammed but the car could still not be repaired satisfactorily. As a result, the complainant expressed a desire to either get the car replaced or get a refund. In the Palaver of repairing the said car, two tyres of the said car once burst while driving in the city, brake pads were replaced and joint test drive was conducted and yet the issue could never be satisfactorily resolved. Eventually, left with no other option, the complainants approached the commission. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant no.1 is not a consumer under the consumer protection act as the car was brought for commercial purposes. the counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 also submitted that the commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In this matter the commission was faced with the following questions: Whether complainants fall under the definition of consumer as provided under the consumer protection act, 1986?Whether this commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case?Whether the opposite partied are deficient in providing its services to the complainants? For the first question the bench referred to the decision of national commission in Crompton Greaves Ltd. and Ors v. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors and held that the complainants are consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the car was purchased for the personal use of directors and not for earning profits or to advance the business activities of the company. In reference to the second question, the bench noted that the car in question was brough from the authorised dealer having registered office at E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 and the cause of action also occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of the commission as the car was sent for repairs at the service centre of Opposite Party No.1, the registered office of which as mentioned earlier falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. Hence, the bench stated that the complaint is well within the jurisdiction of the commission. In reference to the third question the bench observed that the opposite parties, on multiple occasions agreed to the existence of fault in the car as mentioned in the various job cards. The bench also noted from the admission made by the opposite parties that car went for repairs multiple times and at one point the tyres of the car also burst due to excessive heat. The bench observed that this is a manufacturing issue and it was the duty of the manufacturer to replace the said car. However, the opposite parties neither replaced the car nor rectified the defects. Therefore, the bench showed consonance with the contention of the complainants that there is deficiency in the services on part of the opposite parties. The commission hence directed BMW India Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2) to pay the whole purchasing amount of the car that is Rs. 26,26,462/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service with an interest of 6% p.a from the date of payment till date of the judgement. Failing to do so until 23.01.2023, an interest rate of 9% will be calculated from the date on which the car was purchased. The commission also directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony to...

Delhi State Consumer Commission Directs BMW India To Pay A Hefty Compensation For Deficiency In Service

Charu Singh

Tags