The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, found T & T Motors liable for deficiency in service due to their refusal to provide timely repair services while the product was still under warranty.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The complainant purchased a Mercedes Benz from T & T Motors for ₹27,08,189. The car broke down during a rainfall in Delhi and was sent for repairs. Despite receiving over five repair estimates that exceeded the car’s value, the vehicle was not returned even after three months. The complainant’s concerns went unaddressed by the dealer. Citing a manufacturing defect, the complainant filed a complaint with the Delhi State Commission, which ruled in their favor, ordering the dealer to pay ₹2,50,000 as compensation for inconvenience and ₹50,000 for litigation costs. The dealer subsequently appealed the order to the National Commission
CONTENTION OF THE DEALER
The dealer contended that the State Commission overlooked the circumstances hindering timely repairs, such as delays in approvals and parts procurement, which were beyond their control. They also argued that a courtesy car was offered to the complainant, but was declined. The dealer claimed that repairs were completed and the vehicle was ready for delivery, with the final delays attributed to insurance processing. They maintained that there was no deficiency in service and that any compensation liability should fall on the manufacturer.
OBSERVATION BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION
The National Commission upheld the State Commission’s decision, affirming that it had correctly recognized the complainant as a consumer and rightly identified the dealer’s service as deficient. Citing the case of Crompton Greaves Limited and Ors. vs. Dailer Chrysler India Private Limited and Ors., the National Commission emphasized that consumers are entitled to seek redress for defective products or services. The Commission also noted that the dealer failed to justify the four-month delay in repairing the luxury vehicle, which caused significant inconvenience and mental anguish to the complainant. Drawing on Supreme Court rulings in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital, the Commission reinforced the broad interpretation of “compensation” under consumer protection laws, which includes redress for physical, mental, or emotional suffering. Based on these precedents, the National Commission held that the State Commission’s decision to award compensation and litigation costs was justified, and that the delay in repairing the vehicle, despite it being under warranty, was unacceptable.
The National Commission affirmed the State Commission’s order and dismissed the dealer’s appeal.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676