Order Name: M/S. STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LTD. & ANR versus M/S. BMW INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.
A recent decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a complaint against BMW. This ruling, made by a panel including Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, concluded that the complainants could not prove the alleged manufacturing defects in their BMW vehicle.
Background:
The complainants had purchased a BMW 730Ld, part of the BMW 7-Series, for Rs. 82 lakhs from a dealer in Chandigarh. This vehicle, intended for the Managing Director of the complainant company, came with a "Zero Error Car" tag and a two-year warranty. However, from the outset, issues were reported, including a malfunctioning clock, poor stereo performance, and a shaking passenger seat.
Despite informing the manufacturer through letters and emails about these issues, the complainants claim no satisfactory resolution was provided. Initially, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh asked that the defects be rectified through a settlement, but the complainants argued that not all issues were resolved, leading them to file another complaint.
Opposite parties, including the dealer and manufacturer, argued that all necessary repairs were made and challenged the State Commission’s jurisdiction, given the complaint’s value exceeded Rs. 1 crore.
Arguments Presented:
The complainants argued that the car was intended for personal use by the Managing Director, a claim they felt was implicitly accepted by the manufacturer due to lack of denial. They also referenced a technical report by ‘SYMEO’ that detailed defects, which they argued was not contested by the manufacturer.
The opposite parties contended that the complainants had agreed to a settlement which resolved the seat issue and precluded further complaints. They also questioned whether the car was purchased solely for personal use.
Commission’s Findings:
The NCDRC found no evidence supporting that the car was for personal use, as all expenses were borne by the complainant company. Therefore, the complainants did not qualify as ‘consumers’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the commission ruled that the complainants failed to prove any manufacturing defects and that the technical report from ‘SYMEO’ was inadmissible since it wasn’t acknowledged by the opposite parties or the State Commission.
Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as the complainants could not establish any liability on the manufacturer’s part.
Takeaway:
This ruling highlights the importance of substantiating claims with reliable evidence in consumer disputes. It also underscores the necessity for consumers to clearly establish their status under the Consumer Protection Act when seeking redressal.
