A Division Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal was of the view that such overheating a fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality or standard expected to be maintained by Mercedes under the contract with the respondent-company.
In view of the respondent-company having suffered discomfort and waste of time and energy, the Court upheld the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had held Mercedes liable to refund the purchase price and take back the car.
to the respondent-complainant, and take back the car (vehicle) as such does not warrant any interference," the Court said.
However, considering that the car was bought in 2006 and the company had retained and used the car in question for about seventeen years, the Court, to meet the ends of justice, directed Mercedes to refund ₹36 lakh (the original purchase price of the car) instead of ₹58 lakh as ordered by NCDRC.
It also allowed the respondent to retain the car.
A Division Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal was of the view that such overheating a fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality or standard expected to be maintained by Mercedes under the contract with the respondent-company.
"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," the top court said.
In view of the respondent-company having suffered discomfort and waste of time and energy, the Court upheld the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had held Mercedes liable to refund the purchase price and take back the car.
"The respondent-complainant having suffered great inconvenience, discomfort and also the waste of time and energy in pursuing the litigations, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the National Commission of awarding the compensation by directing the appellants to refund the purchase price i.e., Rs. 58 lakhs approx. to the respondent-complainant, and take back the car (vehicle) as such does not warrant any interference," the Court said.
However, considering that the car was bought in 2006 and the company had retained and used the car in question for about seventeen years, the Court, to meet the ends of justice, directed Mercedes to refund ₹36 lakh (the original purchase price of the car) instead of ₹58 lakh as ordered by NCDRC. It also allowed the respondent to retain the car.
