A woman from Chandigarh, who purchased a brand-new Mercedes-Benz GLC 300 4Matic SUV in July 2024 for over Rs 77 lakh, has successfully won a consumer case due to a recurring air-conditioning issue that repeatedly sent her luxury vehicle back to the service center.
Nearly two years after the purchase, the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission determined that the authorized dealer did not effectively resolve the problem despite numerous repair attempts. The commission mandated the dealer to rectify the defect at no cost and awarded the owner Rs 1 lakh for the mental distress and harassment endured, in addition to Rs 35,000 to cover litigation expenses.
The case was brought before a panel consisting of Presiding Member Padma Pandey and Member Rajesh K Arya, following a complaint lodged by 61-year-old Poonam Goel against Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited, an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealership, and Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited.
The commission stated, “The inability to deliver a permanent resolution, despite repeated chances and awareness of the ongoing defect, signifies a clear failure in the quality and execution of services expected from an authorized dealer. Thus, the actions of the first opposing party (Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited) constitute a ‘deficiency in service’ as defined by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,” in its ruling on June 9.
According to Goel’s complaint, she purchased the Mercedes-Benz GLC 300 4Matic from Joshi Auto Zone on July 17, 2024, for Rs 72.87 lakh. With additional expenses for road tax, registration, and other fees, her total investment exceeded Rs 77 lakh.
The vehicle was acquired entirely with her personal funds for private usage. However, shortly after the purchase and before her first scheduled service, she observed that the air-conditioning system activated automatically each time the vehicle was started, even after she had turned it off before shutting down the engine.
Initially, when she approached the dealer, she was informed that this behavior was a standard feature. However, the problem persisted, necessitating multiple visits to the service center. Goel claimed that technicians conducted various repairs, replaced components, and retained the vehicle for lengthy periods, yet the issue remained unresolved.
After several emails and a legal notice sent in November 2024 yielded no satisfactory outcome, she turned to the consumer commission, seeking either a replacement vehicle or a full refund.
In response, the dealership denied any claims of a manufacturing defect, asserting that the issue was software-related and could be fixed under warranty. They maintained that all necessary repairs had been performed and that the vehicle had been serviced according to company protocols.
Mercedes-Benz India also contested the complaint, arguing that the complainant had not provided expert evidence to substantiate the existence of a manufacturing defect. They asserted that the vehicle was operating as intended and that the dealership had replaced the MBUX head unit free of charge in an effort to address the concerns raised by the customer.
The commission reviewed workshop documentation and communication between the parties, finding that the issue had been consistently reported and acknowledged. During the first complimentary inspection in September 2024, the dealership recorded the complaint regarding the air-conditioning system automatically activating.
Further correspondence from customer service representatives also confirmed the ongoing issue and indicated that technical teams were investigating the matter. Workshop records showed that technicians conducted software updates, diagnostic tests, coding procedures, and fault analyses.
On October 30, 2024, after the SUV had covered merely 2,479 kilometers, the dealership replaced the head unit and reprogrammed the control system in an attempt to resolve the malfunction. The commission noted that technicians identified communication issues within the air-conditioning system and control units. Despite extensive repairs and component replacements, the same problem continued to reappear.
A significant question for the commission was whether the issue constituted a manufacturing defect. Initially, an application was submitted for an independent expert inspection of the vehicle through Punjab Engineering College. However, the complainant later decided not to pursue this request, resulting in the absence of a technical report that could substantiate a manufacturing defect.
Referencing prior rulings from the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the bench pointed out that claims of manufacturing defects in vehicles must be backed by credible expert evidence. Without such evidence, the commission concluded that the allegation of a manufacturing defect was unproven, leading to the dismissal of the complaint against Mercedes-Benz India.
While partially upholding the complaint, the commission instructed Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited to fully rectify the air-conditioning issue in the Mercedes-Benz GLC 300 4Matic within 30 days at no cost to the complainant. The dealership was also ordered to pay Rs 1 lakh for mental distress and harassment, along with Rs 35,000 for litigation costs. Should this amount not be settled within 30 days, it would accrue interest at a rate of 9 percent per annum until payment is made.
The complaint against Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited was dismissed, with the commission ruling that no manufacturing defect had been established through expert evidence. This decision highlights an important distinction in consumer disputes related to automobiles: while manufacturing defects require expert technical evidence for validation, dealerships can still be held liable for failing to resolve persistent issues despite repeated repair attempts.
For consumers, this ruling serves as a crucial reminder of their rights in such situations.
