Consumer Court To BMW Dealer: Pay Back Customer 5.42 Lakh Charged For Air Suspension Repair

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has ordered Krishna Automobiles, a BMW India dealership, to refund ₹5.42 lakh to Pawan Kumar Goel, an unhappy customer for the repairs/replacement of defective parts of his BMW 730 LD. This ruling modifies a previous one by the District Commission and dismisses the appeals of both the German manufacturer and its dealer partner.

Goel purchased his BMW 730 LD from Krishna Automobiles eight years ago. He has clocked over 60,000 kilometres till date. For the past 4 years, he has reportedly been facing multiple woes in his ownership. He further says that the dealer sent him an extended warranty package via email on July 6, 2016, labelled as the ‘BSI Plus and Extended Warranty Package’. He bought the same by paying Rs 3.7 lakh.

The BSI Plus (BMW Service Inclusive) is a service package that covers the maintenance and wear-and-tear items for BMW cars and SUVs. Opting for this will help in keeping the costs under check, especially if you own an older model. The package includes the replacement of important parts that are prone to wear and tear, with original BMW spares. Front and rear brake pads, Front and rear brake discs, Clutch, and Wiper blades are all included in the package. There is thus a proper value proposition to it.

The complainant, however, reported a rear suspension issue in May 2020. Upon inspection, the dealer technicians soon found out that it was a problem caused by the suspension’s faulty air supply pump. Goel believed it to be covered under the warranty he had bought. However, he was soon sent an estimate of 4.67 lakh for repair and replacement of the faulty parts.

The complainant raised his concerns and sent emails to the dealer authorities describing the issue in detail. He requested BMW India and the dealer to get it fixed under warranty so that he could continue with peaceful ownership of his prized possession. He was reportedly told that “the parts in question were not covered under the warranty and would incur additional charges”. Following this, Goel took things to the District Commission.

BMW stated in response that the extended warranty policy was purchased in August 2016, while the car itself was bought in September 2011. It was in the fifth year of ownership that the owner added the service package to his 7 series. The statement further said that the service-inclusive warranty would expire in the sixth year of ownership, specifically in September 2017. The manufacturer further stated that the issue was raised in May 2020, well after the expiration of the extended warranty. Thus it would not be covered under the same.

The dealer partner added to this by saying that the vehicle was purchased in the name of a firm and operates as a commercial entity. “The invoice and registration of the car were issued in the firm’s name, emphasising that the transaction pertains to commercial activities. The warranty period concluded on September 7, 2016,” They further said that the complainant did not disclose these details for reasons unclear, and would thus be not eligible for benefiting from the extended warranty pack.

After hearing both parties out and analysing the materials and records available, the district commission directed the Dealer to repair and replace the defective parts and pay ₹25,000 in compensation and an additional 10,000 as litigation costs.

This was, however, not something that either party would be happy about. Both of them contested and moved to the state commission in hopes of a better ruling. Goel filed an appeal asking for modification and seeking better compensation. The state commission heard the matter and stated that paying 3.74 lakh for an extended warranty that was valid for just one year would be questionable. It would, however, come into effect once the vehicle warranty expired. The car thus enjoyed coverage from the Extended warranty at the time of fault detection.

“Based on the evidence presented and the absence of clear documentation indicating otherwise, this Commission also finds that the extended warranty purchased by the complainant commenced upon the expiration of the original warranty. The District Commission’s conclusion in this matter was, therefore, justified and appropriate.”

The commission concluded that the previous ruling needed modification. Krishna Automobiles was asked to issue a refund of ₹5.42,00,00 to Pawan Kumar Goel and get the vehicle fixed alongside paying 35,000 in compensation and 20,000 in litigation costs.