Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed the car company BMW India to pay the whole cost of the car to its one buyer over manufacturing defects in the car.

A bench of Members Pinki and Bimla Kumari directed BMW to refund the entire purchase amount, interest borne on the loan, 6% interest on purchase amount and interest on the loan, cost for mental agony and mental harassment, litigation cost, cost incurred on service and maintenance of the car, cost of tire replacement and insurance amount.

BMW has been charged with the cost because it did not replace the vehicle with manufacturing defects or fixed its flaws.

The matter pertains to the issues faced by a consumer namely Pritam Pal after 5 months of purchasing a BMW car. Pal after using the car for about five months observed a loud squeaking sound while applying brakes.

The same was reported to the car dealer who after inspection, admitted the loud and strange squeaking sound while applying the brakes of the car and duly noted it on the job card.

The car dealer kept the car in question in its workshop for ten days, however, the problem could not be cured even after repairs. Thereafter, vide email dated April 27, 2015, Pal again intimated the said problem to the car dealer and sent the car to the workshop of the dealer. After inspection, the technician of the car dealer again noted that a “whistling noise comes from the brake while applying brakes” and kept the car at a workshop for repairs. Thereafter, the car dealer delivered the said car after keeping it in the service station for around six-seven days and informed the complainants that the front brake pads and the front rotors (discs) of the car had been changed. However, the noise while braking the said car was persisting.

After several complaints to the car dealer and unfruitful attempts for fixing the defects, a joint test drive was conducted by the BMW’s R&D Centre at Manesar, wherein the performance of the brakes was found to be poor, unsatisfactory, and inefficient. After getting the repairs done, the complainants immediately took a test drive of the car and found no appreciable difference in the braking system of the car.

Thereafter, after several emails and complaints to no avail, Pal preferred the consumer complaint.

Along with other general issues, the Commission considered the issue whether the opposite parties were deficient in providing their services to the complainants.

The Commission opined that it was clear that the car in question went for repairs on several occasions within a short span of one year of its purchase. Also, two tires of the car were burst in February 2016, which could only be occurred due to excessive heat and friction created due to a faulty braking system. Therefore, it was clear that the fault in the braking system was due to a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and it was the duty of BWM India to replace the said car, it held.

Case Title: Pritam Pal & Anr Vs. Bird Automotive Pvt Ltd.