M/S DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD. versus M/S CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

M/S DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD. versus M/S CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that purchase of a car by a company for use/personal use of its director is not necessarily a "commercial purpose" under s.2(1)(d); absent evidence of nexus with profit-generating activity, such purchases fall within the definition of "consumer." The Court found the overheating of the vehicle to be a defect under s.2(1)(f) and upheld the National Commission's findings that non-deployment/non-disclosure regarding airbags constituted deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice; accordingly the National Commission's awards were largely upheld, but equity required reducing the refund ordered in one matter to Rs.36,00,000 while permitting the complainant to retain...

Parties
Appellant: M/s Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent: M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd.; Respondent: M/s CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd.; Respondent: Mr. Sudhir M. Trehan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court (appeal Disposed)
Outcome
C.A. No. 353/2008 partly allowed; C.A. Nos. 19536-19537/2017 and 2633/2018 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Commercial Purpose, Consumer Definition, Defect in Goods, Deficiency in Service, Unfair Trade Practice, Airbag Deployment, Overheating of Vehicle, Compensation, Maintainability
Consumer Protection Product Safety Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Commercial Purpose Consumer Definition Defect in Goods Deficiency in Service Unfair Trade Practice +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant

M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd.

Respondent

M/s CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd.

Respondent

Mr. Sudhir M. Trehan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court (appeal Disposed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchase of a vehicle by a company for use/personal use of its directors amounts to purchase for "commercial purpose" under s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  2. 2 Whether overheating defect in the vehicle amounted to a "defect" under s.2(1)(f) and justified relief
  3. 3 Whether non-deployment/non-disclosure regarding airbags constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Act and whether the National Commission's compensation orders were justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that purchase of a car by a company for use/personal use of its director is not necessarily a "commercial purpose" under s.2(1)(d); absent evidence of nexus with profit-generating activity, such purchases fall within the definition of "consumer." The Court found the overheating of the vehicle to be a defect under s.2(1)(f) and upheld the National Commission's findings that non-deployment/non-disclosure regarding airbags constituted deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice; accordingly the National Commission's awards were largely upheld, but equity required reducing the refund ordered in one matter to Rs.36,00,000 while permitting the complainant to retain...

Court Disposition

C.A. No. 353/2008 partly allowed; C.A. Nos. 19536-19537/2017 and 2633/2018 dismissed.

Orders

  • In C.A. No. 353/2008 respondent-complainant permitted to retain car bearing registration no. DL-9CV-5555 and appellant directed to refund Rs.36,00,000 (Rupees thirty-six lakhs) by way of compensation within three months, failing which interest at 9% per annum from date of order until payment
  • All three Appeals in C.A. Nos. 19536-19537/2017 and C.A. No. 2633/2018 are dismissed, thereby upholding the National Commission's directions including (i) payment of Rs.5,00,000 to complainant for deficiency in services on account of airbags not deploying, (ii) payment of Rs.5,00,000 as compensation for unfair trade...