Vinay Kartika Chadha vs Mercedes Benz India Ltd. And Ors.

COMPLAINT was filed on 1.12.1999 alleging that Mercedes Benz India Ltd. - OP No. 1 is the manufacturer and seller of luxury cars in the name of Mercedes Benz and OP No. 3 is the Manager (Sales) of OP No. 1 at New Delhi. Sometime in November, 1997, the OP No. 1 gave advertisements in local daily newspapers and allured by advertisement and inquiry made from OP No. 3, the complainant purchased a Mercedes Benz model No. E -250 -D(124 126 6C 284709) from Patel Autos, New Delhi - authorised dealer of OP No 1 for Rs. 19,95,858 on 2.12.1997. After taking delivery it was noticed that the car had already clocked 100 kms, it was registered in the name of T and T Motors Ltd., New Delhi, pick -up of the car was very poor, engine was giving high noise and the Blaupunkt'' music system was not working properly. Complainant sent a fax on 9.12.1997 to OP No. 2 at Pune highlighting the defects in the car. It was stated that even after checking and servicing of car by Patel Auto Pvt. Ltd., authorized service station of OP No. 1 the defects were not removed. Complainant got issued a notice dated 23.2.1998 through Counsel to which OP No. 1 through lawyer sent a reply dated 11.3.1998. It was prayed that OP No. 1 be directed to refund the paid amount of Rs. 19,95,858 with interest @ 18% p.a. and pay Rs. 10.00 lakh as compensation for mental agony, etc.

ONLY OP No. 1 contested the complaint by filing written version. It was alleged that the automobiles manufactured by the answering opposite party in India are world class cars and renowned for their quality, safety and comfort. Cars manufactured by OP No. 1 were introduced to the Indian market after obtaining approval/certification (as to its quality, standard or fitness) of ARAI, a Government approved agency and appropriate laboratory specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was stated that the car in question was invoiced for a price of Rs. 22,64,868 and the complainant was given discount of Rs. 2,68,890 as the new model was to be launched shortly by OP No. 1. Engineer of OP No. 1 attended to the car and informed that the level of engine noise was normal as per the Mercedes Benz specification. Music system fitted in the car was bought out from a world class manufacturer, namely, Blaupunkt -Hamburg Stereo who are represented by M/s. MICO In India. It was alleged that music system was changed. M/s. Patel Auto, New Delhi who was approached by the complainant for poor pick -up and high engine noise, carried out the inspection and concluded that the injectors were clogged as the fuel in the tank was of poor quality and the consequent problem occurring due to accumulation of carbon in the injectors was rectified by flushing the clogged fuel injectors. Complainant was not charged for the same. It was pleaded that the dealers by OP No. 1 are appointed on principal to principal basis and the cars are generally sold to the dealers. A car does not become second hand merely because it was sold to a dealer for the specific purpose of sale to ultimate customers. Invoice of the car made in the name of T and T Motors - authorized dealer was cancelled and the car was directly invoiced in the name of the complainant with a view to ensure that complainant gets maximum benefit. Car was given to complainant No. 1 on or about 2.12.1997 on trial basis even before it was sold to her. Invoice was raised on 10.12.1997. Noise level in the cars fitting with diesel engines is slightly higher and there was nothing abnormal in the car sold to the complainant. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the car. It was pleaded that despite prompt action being taken at the end of answering opposite party, the complainant and her husband gave interviews to the Press and conducted media trial. Newspapers reported that Mercedes Benz India was dragged to High Court. Enormous Press publicity by the complainant and her husband was intended to pressurize and blackmail the opposite party. No notice of any suit was issued from the High Court. It was denied that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

AFFIDAVITS of evidence were filed by both the parties. We have heard Mr. Ravikant Chadha for the complainant and Mr. M.S. Pandit for the opposite parties. In support of the case Mr. Chadha relied on the decisions in Controls and Switchgear Company v. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., IV (2007) CPJ 1 (NC); Kinetic Engineering Ltd. and Anr. v. Rahul Roy, IV (2006) CPJ 100 (NC); Kaptan Singh (Minor) v. B.K. Jain and Anr., (1986 -2006) Consumer 11276 (NS); Wheels World v. Tejinder Singh Grewal and Anr., I (1995) CPJ 133 (NC); and in FA No. 150 of 1998; Vinoo Bhagat v. General Motors (India) Ltd. and Anr. decided by this Commission on 30.1.2003. Reliance was placed by Mr. Pandit on the decision in Tata Engineering Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. T. Nagaraju, I (1997) CPJ 14 (NC)=(1986 -1999) Consumer 3900 (NS).

WITH the consent of the parties by the order dated 21.10.2002 the car in question was directed to be examined by ARAI, Pune to report about the pick -up and noise level thereof as per the normal standard of Mercedes car. Inspection report dated 9.6.2004 was forwarded along with the covering letter dated 15.6.2004 by ARAI, Pune to this Commission. Joint inspection of the car was carried out at ARAI on 1.6.2004 and field trials were carried out at National Centre for Automatic Testing at Ahmednagar on 7.6.2004. Part of this report dealing with the level of noise and pick -up being material, are reproduced below: Sr. No. Complaints lodged by petitioner ARAI observations Remarks 1 2 3 4 1. Noise emitted by the vehicle The vehicle was tested as per IS 3028 -1980 (since the vehicle had then complied with this standard). The Noise emitted by the vehicle with A/C on was observed to be 68 dB (A) as against then prevailing permissible limit of 82 dB) (A). The noise emitted by the vehicle with A/C off was observed to be 68 dB(A) as against then prevailing permissible limit of 82 dB (A). The vehicle was tested as per the prevailing standard IS 3028 -1998. The Noise emitted by the vehicle with A/C on was observed to be 75 dB(A) as against prevailing permissible limit of 75 dB(A). The Noise emitted by the vehicle with A/C off was observed to be 73 dB(a) as against prevailing permissible limit of 75 dB(A). These limits i.e. limit of 75 dB(A). These limits i.e. 75 dB(A) are presently effective for type approval of new vehicles. To conclude, subject vehicle, which is an in use vehicle, meets the Pass by Noise norms for new type approval, as specified under Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (as amended up to date)

Pick up of the vehicle Vehicle was tested for acceleration (speedwise and distancewise) as per IS 11851 -1986

(a) Acceleration test was carried out in A/c on mode for Speed of 0.100 km/h and average subject time taken was 28.90 seconds. For Sr. Nos. (a) and (b): Taking into account the vintage of the subject vehicle and kilometers logged in, the results

(b) Acceleration test was carried out in A /c off mode for speed of 0 -100 km/h and average time taken was 23.86 seconds. of the Acceleration test (speed -wise) in A/C on mode as well as in A/C off mode are found to be satisfactory.

(c) Acceleration test was carried out in A/c on mode to cover a distance of 1 km and average time taken was 44.76 seconds. For Sr. Nos. (c) and (d): Taking into account the vintage of the subject vehicle and kilometres logged in the results of the Acceleration test (distancewise) in A/C on mode as well as in A/C off distance of 1 km and average time taken was 42.21 seconds.

(d)Acceleration test was carried out in A/c off mode to cover a mode are found to be satisfactory.

NOTE. There are no limits specified under CMVR for acceleration of vehicles. The test prescribed under IS 11851 -1986 is a subjective test in nature.

IT was pointed out on behalf of OP No. 1 that no standards have been prescribed on noise level and pick -up by O.P. No. 1.

AFORESAID covering letter dated 15.6.2004 deals with certain allegations made against the officials of ARAI by Ms. Vandita Malhotra, Advocate who represented the complaint at the time of inspection of the car. Against the said inspection report dated 9.6.2004: the complainant filed objections dated 29.10.2004. These objections pertain to the poor pick -up, high level of noise in engine and bias in giving the report by ARAI Allegations of bias appear to be those contained in the letter dated 4.3.2004 of Ms. Vandita Malhotra to ARAI in P. Nagaraju''s case (supra), it was held by this Commission that after appointment of a Research Institution for inspection of the vehicle with the consent of both the parties it is not open and correct on the part of either of the parties to raise issues of bias. Having thoroughly examined the report dated 9.6.2004 and what is stated in the covering letter, we do not find any merit whatsoever in the objections dated 29.10.2004 and the same are rejected and the said report is accepted. Decisions referred to above relied on behalf of complainant being distinguishable on facts, are of no assistance to the complainant. Moreover, the operation of the judgment in Controls and Switchgear (supra), has been stayed in appeal by the Supreme Court. Complaint, thus, deserves to be dismissed being without any substance. Dismissed as such. No order as to cost. Complaint dismissed.