M.T.UNADKAT,J - (1.) THE complainant No. 1 is a consumer association. The complainant No. 2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of the limited company.
(2.) The complaint is filed for and on behalf of the complainant No. 2. Therefore, wherever the word "complainant "is used, it should be treated for the words complainant No. 2. This complaint was dismissed at the admission stage on 22.8.2005 on the ground that the car is purchased for commercial purpose and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d), of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of convenience) The complainant challenged the said order by filing the First Appeal No. 765 of 2005 before the Honorable National Commission. It is allowed by an order dated 17.11.2009 holding that the car is purchased for the use of Chairman and Managing Director of the company. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the provisions of the section of the said Act. Therefore, the matter is remanded for fresh trial on merits to the State Commission. The opponent No. 1 challenged the said order by filing a Special Leave Petition No. 6936 of 2013 before the Honorable Supreme Court of India. It is dismissed by the order dated 7.12.2012. Thereafter, this matter is placed before this Bench for disposal on merits according to the provisions of the said Act. The complainant has purchased Mercedes Benz car for a sum of Rs. 24,14,164 by invoice No. BJ 1117 dated 24.8.2001. The complainant has paid full amount by account payee cheque. The possession of the car is handed over to the complainant. The said car is registered with RTO on 1.9.2001. The car is manufactured by the opponent No. 1. The opponent No. 2 is the authorized dealer of the opponent No. 1. The complainant had purchased the said car through the opponent No. 2. The opponents had given Warranty for one year for the good and proper performance of the car. It is alleged by the complainant that problem started in the car within warranty period. Following manufacturing defects were found in the car during the warranty period. "(A) Problem of Clutch System: Problem of clutch cropped up within six months only. Since then it has been repaired for more than six times. Every time a car was retained for 2 -3 days at Ahmedabad. To get the same repaired they usually perform the following activities and that too with the cost to us. Drain off the oil, service some of the cylinders, Again fill up the oil. Honorable Commission will appreciate to know that the costs of oil is very high which in turn is borne by us. Opponent No. 2 have called the German Experts to repair the same. They removed capsule cover. They have adopted a trial and error method to cut the cover with a view to check whether it catches the heat. They have also removed bottom cover. German experts have put back the cover with a window but the problem still persists. This is evident from the correspondence. The clutch of the car stops operating after a run of 100 -150 kms. The same continues for an hour or so and as temperature goes down, it again starts working. In summer time this is frequent while in monsoons or winters the frequency depends upon the temperature. One or two times applicant No. 2 faced lot of trouble in between the long journey and we had to call and intimate them from Surendranagar. (B) Problem of A/C. System: During the Warranty period. A.C. system started creating problem. Ultimately opponent No. 2 found out that one of the coil provided originally needs to be replaced with subsequently new designed coil. Opponent No. 2 replaced the Coil free of costs only changing fitting and incidental expenses. However, after 8/9 months, the problem again cropped up. The opponent No. 2 diagnosed it as leakage and some gas filling was done. But thereafter again it cropped up and till today the same problem persists. (C) Problem of Silencer System: Silencer though broke after two years of driving but breakage was a manufacturing defect. Such a kind of problem/breakdown is never found in other cars in India. However, the opponents have agreed to replace the same with a condition that they will bear 50% of the charges and balance 50% will be borne by the applicant No. 2. If the problem is not occurred within warranty period why do they agree to bear 50% of the charges? This evidently shows that the same problem is a manufacturing defect of silencer is inherent."
(3.) THE opponent No. 2 is running a Service Station for repairing of the Mercedes Benz cars. The complainant handed over his car for the purpose of repairing to the opponent No. 2 repeatedly. However, the defects were not removed. The complainant written a letter dated 27.1.2003 to the opponent No. 1 and informed about manufacturing defects which could not be removed though the car was given to the service station of the opponent No. 2. Long correspondences were taken place between the complainant on one hand and the opponent No. 2 on the other hand. The opponent No. 1 had appointed a German Technician for removing the defects in the Clutch. However, It could not be removed. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice to the opponents and requested to return the value of the car. The complainant had also spent a sum of Rs. 88,966 for repairing. The complainant has filed present complaint for return of Rs. 24,14,164 value of the car, Rs. 99,966 repairing expenses with interest, transportation charges from Vadodara to Ahmedabad for a sum of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 2,00,000 compensation and Rs. 25,000 by way of costs.;