The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed car company BMW India to pay the whole cost of the car to its buyer over manufacturing defects.
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 tyre replacement and insurance amount.
BMW has been charged with the cost because it did not replace the vehicle with manufacturing defects or fix its flaws.
The matter pertains to the issues faced by a consumer, Pritam Pal after five months of purchasing a BMW car. Pal noticed a loud squeaking sound while applying brakes and reported to the car dealer, who after inspection, noted it on the job card.
The car dealer kept the car in his workshop for 10 days, however, the problem could not be fixed even after repairs. Through an email dated April 27, 2015, Pal intimated the said problem to the car dealer and sent the car to the workshop. 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. The car dealer delivered the said car after keeping it in the service station for around six-seven days and informed the complainant that the front brake pads and the front rotors (discs) of the car had been changed. However, the noise persisted.
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 complainant immediately took a test drive of the car and found no appreciable difference in the braking system of the car.
With several emails and complaints to no avail, Pal filed a consumer complaint.
Along with other general issues, the court considered, whether the opposite parties are deficient in providing their services to the complainants.
The court opined that it is clear that the car in question went for repairs on several occasions within a short span of one year of its purchase. Also, two tyres of the car burst on February 2016, which could only occur due to excessive heat and friction created due to a faulty braking system.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment