Rs 77 lakh Mercedes, zero cooling: Chandigarh woman wins Rs 1 lakh for ‘avoidable’ hardship, mental agony

“The failure to provide a lasting solution, despite multiple opportunities and clear knowledge of the recurring defect, amounts to a clear shortcoming in the quality, nature and manner of performance of services expected from an authorised dealer. Consequently, the conduct of opposite party No.1 (Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited, the dealer) constitutes ‘deficiency in service’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,” the commission said on June 9.

The commission said that defects surfaced at a very early stage of usage, undermining the confidence of the complainant in the quality and dependability of the Mercedes vehicle. (Image generated using AI)

Avoidable hardship, mental agony, harassment

• It is evident that the complainant, having purchased a high-end luxury vehicle for a substantial consideration, was legitimately entitled to seamless performance, reliability and hassle-free usage of all its features.
• However, instead of enjoying the comfort and convenience expected from such a premium vehicle, the complainant was repeatedly compelled to approach the dealer for redressal of the same persistent issue, causing continuous inconvenience, uncertainty and loss of peace of mind.
• The recurring malfunction, coupled with the inability of the authorised dealer to provide a permanent solution despite repeated assurances and interventions, would have naturally led to frustration, anxiety and a sense of dissatisfaction in the mind of the complainant.
• The situation is further aggravated by the fact that such defects surfaced at a very early stage of usage, undermining the confidence of the complainant in the quality and dependability of the vehicle.
• Consequently, the complainant has undoubtedly suffered considerable mental agony, harassment and avoidable hardship, for which she is entitled to be suitably compensated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Luxury purchase turned headache

According to the complaint, Goel purchased the Mercedes-Benz X254 GLC 300 4Matic from Joshi Auto Zone on July 17, 2024, for Rs 72.87 lakh. Including road tax, registration and other charges, her total expenditure crossed Rs 77 lakh.

The Mercedes vehicle was purchased entirely from her personal funds for personal use.

However, within a short period and before the first scheduled service, she noticed that every time the vehicle was started, the air-conditioning system automatically switched on despite having been manually turned off before the engine was shut down.

Goel alleged that when she first approached the dealer, she was told that the behaviour was a standard feature.

But the issue continued to recur, forcing her to make repeated visits to the workshop. She claimed that technicians repeatedly experimented with repairs, replaced parts and retained the vehicle for extended periods, yet failed to resolve the problem permanently.

After several emails and a legal notice sent in November 2024 failed to produce a satisfactory outcome, she approached the consumer commission seeking replacement of the vehicle or a refund of the entire amount paid.

Dealer, manufacturer reject allegations

The dealership denied any manufacturing defect and argued that the issue was software-related and capable of being rectified under warranty.

It claimed that all necessary repairs were undertaken and that the vehicle was serviced in accordance with company procedures.

Mercedes-Benz India also contested the complaint, maintaining that the complainant had failed to produce expert evidence proving the existence of a manufacturing defect.

The manufacturer asserted that the vehicle was operating as designed and that the dealership had even replaced the MBUX head unit free of cost in an attempt to address the customer’s concerns.

Technical records showed repeated attempts to solve issue

The commission examined workshop records and correspondence exchanged between the parties and found that the issue had been repeatedly reported and acknowledged.

During the vehicle’s first free inspection in September 2024, the dealership recorded the complaint regarding the AC automatically switching on.

Subsequent emails from customer service officials also acknowledged the recurring problem and informed the complainant that technical teams were studying the issue.

Workshop records revealed that technicians carried out software updates, diagnostic testing, coding procedures and fault analysis.

On October 30, 2024, when the SUV had covered only 2,479 kilometres, the dealership replaced the head unit and reprogrammed the control system in an effort to fix the malfunction.

The commission noted that technicians had identified communication faults involving the air-conditioning system and control units.

Even after extensive interventions and component replacement, the same issue continued to surface.

Why Mercedes-Benz India escaped liability

A key question before the commission was whether the problem amounted to a manufacturing defect.

The bench noted that an application had initially been moved seeking an independent expert inspection of the vehicle through Punjab Engineering College.

However, the complainant later chose not to pursue the request, resulting in the absence of any technical report establishing an inherent manufacturing defect.

Citing previous decisions of the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the bench observed that allegations of manufacturing defects in vehicles must be supported by credible expert evidence.

In the absence of such evidence, the commission held that the allegation of a manufacturing defect remained unproven and consequently dismissed the complaint against Mercedes-Benz India.

Relief granted by commission

Partly allowing the complaint, the commission directed Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited to completely rectify the AC problem in the Mercedes-Benz GLC 300 4Matic within 30 days without charging the complainant.

The dealership was also ordered to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 35,000 towards litigation costs. If the amount is not paid within 30 days, it will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum until realisation.

The complaint against Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited was dismissed, with the commission holding that no manufacturing defect had been established through expert evidence.

Why order matters

The ruling underscores a crucial distinction in consumer disputes involving automobiles.

While manufacturing defects must be proved through expert technical evidence, dealerships can still be held accountable when they repeatedly fail to rectify persistent problems despite multiple repair attempts.

For consumers, the order serves as a reminder that luxury branding and premium pricing do not exempt dealers from their obligation to provide effective after-sales service and a hassle-free ownership experience.