Isabella Mariam

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently dismissed a complaint against BMW India, ruling that the complainants failed to prove any manufacturing defects in a BMW 7-Series vehicle. The case, which was heard by a bench comprising Mr. Subhash Chandra as the presiding member and Dr. Sadhna Shanker as a member, centered around the allegations of defects in the vehicle purchased by the complainants. Despite presenting a technical report from a private agency, SYMEO, the NCDRC found the evidence insufficient to uphold the claims of defects and ultimately dismissed the appeal filed by the complainants.

Background of the Case

The complainants, who purchased a BMW 730Ld from an authorized dealer in Chandigarh for a substantial amount of Rs. 82 lacs, alleged several defects in the vehicle from the very first day of ownership. The car was intended for the personal use of the Managing Director of the complainant's company. The issues reported included a malfunctioning clock, poor stereo performance, a cracking sound from the car’s stereo system, and a shaking front left passenger seat. These issues were promptly communicated to the manufacturer through a series of letters and emails.

The complainants further contended that BMW India admitted to the inherent defects via email and a reply to a legal notice. However, they claimed that the manufacturer failed to take adequate steps to rectify these defects despite acknowledging them. When the issues remained unresolved, the complainants filed a complaint with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh. The State Commission initially directed BMW to resolve the defects, but only the seat issue was addressed, leaving the other problems unresolved.

In response, BMW denied the allegations, asserting that the car had been repaired as per the complaints raised by the complainants. The manufacturer also challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission, claiming that the value of the relief sought exceeded Rs. 1 crore, and thus the State Commission could not entertain the case.

Proceedings in the State Commission

The State Commission dismissed the complainants' complaint, concluding that it lacked merit. Unhappy with the dismissal, the complainants took the case to the NCDRC, appealing the decision made by the State Commission. Their legal representatives argued that the car had been purchased for the Managing Director's personal use, as evidenced by their payment for the vehicle. The complainants also contended that BMW had violated the terms of the settlement agreement, which required the rectification of the defects as per the first complaint.

In support of their claims, the complainants submitted a technical report from SYMEO, a private agency specializing in "Road Load Data Acquisition" and "Fatigue Testing" of automotive components. The complainants argued that since BMW had not denied the technical report nor cross-verified it, it should be accepted as valid proof of the car’s defects.

The Manufacturer's Response

BMW India, on the other hand, refuted the claims made by the complainants. Their legal team argued that the settlement agreement between the parties had been breached by the complainants. Specifically, they pointed to the agreement in the first complaint where the complainants had agreed to have the seat repaired free of charge, implicitly accepting that no further issues would be raised. BMW also cited a previous legal case, M/s Radio Time vs Shri Lila Ram Bohra, which ruled that decisions of lower forums could not be contested if they were well-reasoned.

Regarding the status of the complainant as a consumer, BMW contended that the vehicle was not purchased for personal use, and therefore, the complainants did not qualify for protection under the Consumer Protection Act.

NCDRC's Findings

Upon reviewing the case, the NCDRC observed that the complainants had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the car was purchased for personal use by the Managing Director. Furthermore, the Commission noted that all expenses related to the car had been borne by Complainant No. 1, not Complainant No. 2, who did not pay for the vehicle. As a result, the NCDRC concluded that the complainants did not meet the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, and their claim was not valid in this context.

Additionally, the Commission found that the complainants failed to prove the existence of any manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The technical report submitted by SYMEO was not accepted, as it had not been acknowledged by either the manufacturer or the State Commission. According to the NCDRC, the report's authenticity was questionable due to the lack of involvement from the opposite parties, and thus, it could not be relied upon as evidence.

The Commission referred to previous rulings, including Sukhvinder Singh vs. Classic Automobile (2012) and Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Syed Hasan (2014), which supported the view that private reports not acknowledged by both parties in a dispute should not be considered valid evidence. Consequently, the NCDRC upheld the lower forums’ decisions and dismissed the appeal filed by the complainants.

In conclusion, the NCDRC ruled in favor of BMW India, stating that the complainants had failed to substantiate their claims of manufacturing defects. The decision emphasized the importance of presenting credible evidence and acknowledged that the technical report from the private agency could not be used to support the allegations, as it was not verified by the opposite parties. This case serves as a reminder of the stringent standards required to prove a manufacturing defect claim and highlights the critical role of consumer protection laws in ensuring fair and just resolutions.

Case Title: M/S. Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. & ANR Vs M/S. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case No : First Appeal No. 1913 of 2017

Coram: Mr. Subash Chandra , Presiding Member and Dr.Sadhana Shanker, Member

[Read / Download judgment]