Digital
Why OpenAI is hiring 100 ex-bankers: Inside the ChatGPT-maker's secret project to automate Wall Street's grunt work
Supreme Court orders Mercedes-Benz India to pay Rs 36 lakh for defective car
Since the car was bought in 2006 and Controls and Switchgear Company has used it for 17 years, the court directed Mercedes to refund Rs 36 lakh (the original purchase price)
During the 2024 earnings, Mercedes-Benz's earnings slumped by 30 percent and its car division saw a decline of 40 percent
The Supreme Court has directed Mercedes-Benz India Pvt Ltd to refund Rs 36 lakh to Controls and Switchgear Company Limited for malfunctioning and defects in the car.
According to a report by Bar and Bench, the complaint argued that in one of two cars purchased by them from Mercedes, the central hump on the floor over the drive shaft of the vehicle suffered from overheating. The defect caused overheating in the car.
The bench of Justices Bela M Trivedia and Pankaj Mithal said that excessive heating is, a shortcoming in the quality or standard expected to be maintained by Mercedes.
According to the report, the Supreme Court said, "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 court upheld the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had held Mercedes liable to refund the purchase price and take back the car.
Since the car was bought in 2006 and Controls and Switchgear Company has used it for 17 years, the court directed Mercedes to refund Rs 36 lakh (the original purchase price). It also allowed the respondent to retain the car.
During the hearing, Mercedes argued that it was a company that purchased the car so the respondent should not be allowed under 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Mercedes said the car was used for the company for the personal use of its directors, so it should have been under the purview of 'commercial' purpose.
The Court noted that it is upon Mercedes to prove that the respondent company had purchased the car for 'commercial purpose'. However, the apex court said that there was nothing placed on record by Mercedes to support its stand.
“Two drunks leaning on a lamppost”: Sir Martin Sorrell on the Omnicom–IPG merger and the turbulence ahead
In a wide-ranging interview with Storyboard18, Sorrell delivers his frankest assessment yet of how the deal will redefine creativity, media, and talent across markets.