People don't buy luxurious cars to suffer discomfort: Supreme Court slams Mercedes-Benz for its defects

The top court said this upholding the ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had granted reliefs to two companies which bought two cars.

The bench was hearing two separate cases, one involving the heating issue of the car and the other where airbags could not be deployed during an accident.

"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 said as quoted by Business Standard.

The court added, "To determine whether the goods purchased by a person (which would include a legal entity like a company) were for a commercial purpose or not, within the definition of a ‘consumer’ as contemplated in Section 11 2(1)(d) of the said Act, would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case…

"The purchase of the goods should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary."

Favouring the complainant, the NCDRC had directed Mercedes to either replace the car or refund half of the purchase price, which is Rs. 1.15 crore.

The court was hearing the matter that whether a car, which was brought by the company for the use of its director, would fall under the ambit of "commercial purpose".

In case of commercial purpose, the car will not fall under the protection of consumer protection laws.

The court said it finds no evidence that shows the car was used for commercial purposes. It noted the usage of the car by the company's full-time director and his family for personal purposes.