Repair, not replace, vehicle under warranty

Alok Gupta purchased a new BMW car through its authorised dealer Deutsche Motoren at a price of ~25,20,470. Within a week of receiving possession, he noticed several problems in the vehicle. He reported the problems to the dealer, but the latter could not rectify them.

Gupta then filed a complaint before the Delhi State Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This was contested by both the dealer and the manufacturer. By its order of March 14, 2013, the State Commission concluded there was no evidence to prove the vehicle had any manufacturing defect, so there was no need to order a replacement of the vehicle or refund its cost. It merely ordered that it should be repaired to make it defect‑free, and if that was not possible then only the engine should be replaced.

It further ordered that the vehicle should be handed over to Gupta in the presence of a mutually acceptable independent technical expert who would certify that the engine was free of all defects. If the parties were unable to agree upon a mutually acceptable independent technical expert, the State Commission would appoint such an expert. Six months were given to comply with the order. The Forum also ordered extension of the warranty for one year from the date of handing over possession of the repaired vehicle.

This order was challenged before the National Commission. While Gupta insisted upon refund of vehicle cost along with interest, the manufacturer and dealer contended that the order be set aside as the vehicle had no manufacturing defect.

The National Commission observed that Gupta had not produced any evidence to establish an inherent manufacturing defect. He had not even applied to the State Commissioner for the appointment of an expert to inspect the vehicle and submit a report. So, it concluded that the State Commission was justified in not ordering a refund, and dismissed Gupta’s appeal.

The National Commission noted that the vehicle had several problems despite having run for merely 1,587 kilometres. It ordered that the vehicle be repaired and made defect‑free. It observed that any defects during the warranty period had to be rectified by the dealer, while the manufacturer was obliged to provide the required parts. It upheld the State Commission's order holding the manufacturer and the dealer liable for repair.

During the execution of the order, Gupta refused to take delivery of the vehicle on the ground that it was lying unused with the dealer for several years and must have developed several fresh defects during this period. The dealer argued he had complied with the order and Gupta was legally obliged to accept delivery. Gupta sought an order that all the defects which may have occurred subsequently should also be removed. Since the State Commission rejected his plea, he approached the National Commission by filing an execution appeal. The National Commission observed that the new defects were not the subject matter of dispute in the main complaint. Gupta was merely presuming these defects. More importantly, it held that in execution proceedings the consumer commission cannot go beyond the order, and that compliance would be strictly in accordance with the directions given in the order.

Accordingly, by its order of August 9, 2021, delivered by R.K. Agrawal for the bench along with S.M. Kantikar, the National Commission dismissed Gupta's execution appeal. However, it granted Gupta the liberty to file a fresh compliant if he noticed new defects in the vehicle.

The National Commission observed there was no evidence to establish an inherent manufacturing defect, so the State Commission was justified in not ordering a refund