LexM/S DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD. versus M/S CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 416 : 2024 INSC 496 M/s Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2008) 09 July 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for the use/personal use of its directors, if would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within the meaning of s. 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; in the matter pertaining to overheating of the car, the National Commission, if justified in awarded the compensation by directing the appellants to refund the purchase price-Rs. 58 lakhs approx. to the complainant, and take back the car; and National Commission, if justified in directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant for the deficiency in the services rendered to it on account of the airbags of the car having not deployed/triggered and to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice indulged into by them. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – ss. 2(1)(d), 2(1)(f) – Consumer – Commercial purpose – Defect in the car – Complainant purchased two high priced luxury cars for the personal use of its Directors and for his family members, as a part of the perquisite to the Director from the appellant company – Persistent problem of hump heating in one of the car – Complaint and applications before the National Commission – National Commission awarded the compensation by directing the appellants to refund the purchase price-Rs. 58 lakhs approx. to the complainant, and take back the car – Interference with: Held: No material to suggest that the purchase of car had a nexus or was linked to any profit generating activity of the company, as such it could not be said that such a high-priced luxurious car was purchased by the complainant for its “commercial purpose” – It * Author [2024] 7 S.C.R. 417 M/s Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. & Anr. was clearly established by the complainant that an excessive heat was generated in the car – Appellant though not admitted specifically about the said defects in the car, had indirectly stated about the same in the applications filed before the Commission – Thus, the inherent defect of overheating of the car had persisted despite the appellant having provided the rectification measures like providing additional insulation in the car, which caused great inconvenience and discomfort to the passengers seated in the car – Such overheating of the surface of hump and the overall high temperature in the car was a fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality or standard which was expected to be maintained by the appellants under the contract with the complainant and thus, was a ‘defect’ within the meaning of s. 2(1)(f) – People do not purchase the high-end luxurious cars to suffer discomfort more particularly when they buy the vehicle keeping utmost faith in the supplier who would make the representations in the brochures or the advertisements projecting and promoting such cars as the finest and safest automobile in the world – Complainant having suffered great inconvenience, discomfort and also the waste of time and energy in pursuing the litigations, the impugned order passed by the National Commission directing the appellants to refund the purchase price-Rs. 58 lakhs approx. to the complainant, and take back the car does not warrant any interference – However, having regard to the offer made by the appellants to repurchase the car, and having regard to the complainant having retained and used the car for about seventeen years, in the interest of justice and balance of equity the complainant permitted to retain the car and the appellant to refund Rs. 36 lakhs instead of Rs. 58 lakhs to the complainant by way of compensation within the stipulated time. [Paras 17, 23, 24, 25, 40] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(1)(d), 2(1)(r) – Consumer – Commercial purpose – Deficiency in the services – Unfair trade practice – Complainant’s case that they purchased Mercedes Benz, E-Class-E 240 petrol version car from the appellants for its Managing Director based on its safety features – Said car met with the accident, the car was being driven by the company driver, while the director was seated on the rear left side seat of the car, and the driver was wear
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.