The Supreme Court has directed BMW India Private Ltd to compensate a customer with Rs 50 lakh for selling a defective car in 2009. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra overturned a Telangana High Court ruling that had dismissed the case against BMW and ordered the company to provide a new vehicle to the customer.
In their July 10 order, the bench stated, “Given the circumstances of this case, BMW India Private Limited must pay a total of Rs 50 lakhs to resolve all claims. This amount should be transferred electronically to the complainant by August 10, 2024.” This payment nullifies the previous high court order to replace the defective car with a new one.
The bench observed that the manufacturer had offered to replace the old vehicle with a new one as early as June-July 2012, following the high court’s directive, but the complainant refused this offer. The bench noted, “The complainant’s vehicle would have depreciated in value had it been used all this time.”
During the hearing, it was revealed that the complainant had returned the defective vehicle to the dealer. The bench concluded that continuing the legal proceedings after nearly fifteen years would not serve justice. Instead, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, they deemed that substantial justice would be achieved through compensation.
Criticizing the high court’s March 22, 2012, order, the bench stated that the high court had found no basis for the offence of cheating based on the FIR. Despite this, it had unjustifiably directed BMW to replace the vehicle. The high court was approached under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to quash the complaint, not to order a new car.
The Supreme Court noted that the high court’s decision was contested by the Andhra Pradesh government and GVR India Projects Limited, not by BMW. The manufacturer had repeatedly requested the return of the old vehicle to comply with the high court’s order. By July 25, 2012, the complainant, through their lawyer, expressed a preference for monetary compensation over a replacement vehicle.
The complainant purchased a BMW 7 series car on September 25, 2009, which exhibited serious defects by September 29, 2009. The issues persisted, leading to a complaint on November 16, 2009, under Sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, resulting in an FIR against BMW’s directors and the manufacturer.
Also read: Donald Trump Reveals Bullet Hit His Ear: I Was Shot With A Bullet That Pierced….
