Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) vs Saboo Industries & Anr

Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short, the State Commission), the Petitioner / Opposite Party No. 1 – Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.  (formerly known as Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) filed the present Revision Petition No. 3014 of 2012 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act). The Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) in District Forum was accepted with the direction that the pneumatic system equipment (PSE) of the vehicle be replaced at the cost of the Opposite Parties and the Car, in defect free condition, be handed over to the Complainant. Further, Rs. 1,05,000/-, in total, was directed to be paid to the Complainant as mental agony and cost.

Aggrieved by this Order dated 28.12.2011 of the District Forum, the Opposite Party No. 1 filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide its Order dated 17.05.2012, dismissed it.

As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I do not find it relevant to reiterate the same, when the findings of both the fora are concurrent on facts.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Opposite Party submitted that his main argument is that no expert was appointed to certify to the manufacturing defect and to this extent, the Orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He further submitted that the Car did run for about 50000 kms in the first three years, which shows that the Car did not have any manufacturing defect. He cited two Orders of this Commission. The first is Mohd. Hassan Khalid Haidar vs. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., decided on 08.06.2018 and a recent Order in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Smt. Revathi Giri & Ors., decided on 11.10.2023, where the importance of expert opinion have been highlighted for confirming manufacturing defect. Further, the defect in pneumatic system equipment pointed out in 2004 was beyond the two years of warranty period and therefore, replacing the same free of cost does not arise.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant stated that there is a concurrent finding and both the State Commission and the District Forum have dispensed with obtaining the expert opinion. She further stated that since the vehicle has already been sold, so no replacement of the vehicle is sought, but only the compensation that has been granted by the District Forum may be paid to the Complainant. Lastly being a concurrent finding and the scope of the Revision Petition being limited since no new facts or question of law have been raised in the Revision Petition, she asked for dismissal of the Revision Petition.

I have also gone through the record. Though, this is a case of concurrent finding and that the Complaint has been allowed by both the State Commission and the District Forum, the fact remains that no expert opinion was taken as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is concerned. In this regard, Section 13(1)(c) of the Act is reproduced below:

(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.

Both the State Commission and the District Forum erred on not having appointed an expert for the purpose of deciding whether there had been a manufacturing defect. From the Complaint, it is seen that some of the complaints pointed out by the Complainant especially the PSE system relate to a period beyond warranty period of two years provided by the manufacturer. The question of replacing the same beyond the warranty period by the manufacturer without deciding whether there was a manufacturing defect would not arise. The other defects also pointed out in the Complaint are relating to the use of tyres and the hub for which the Opposite Party / Petitioner has already explained the reasons for the same by their letters in response to the request of the Complainant / Respondent. The vehicle has run for about 50,000 kms and has also been now sold. The question of any replacement or repair does not arise.

The Complainant has not been able to bring out any clarity on the deficiency of service on the part of the manufacturer except for making certain allegations, which have not been substantiated with any expert opinion.

I consider the Orders of both the District Forum and the State Commission suffering from both illegality and material irregularity and accordingly consider it worth setting aside.

In view of the discussion above, the Revision Petition is allowed and the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside.