Read on the app
Chief Justice of India Chandrachud News: A bench headed by CJI Chandrachud has ordered luxury car manufacturer BMW India Private Limited to pay a fine of Rs 50 lakh in a case of fraud committed with a customer in 2009. The Supreme Court gave this verdict by overturning the order of the Telangana High Court and ordered the company to pay Rs 50 lakh as a fine to the customer.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra set aside the order of the Telangana High Court, in which the High Court had quashed the prosecution against the auto company and asked the company to give a new vehicle to the complainant in place of the defective vehicle. The Supreme Court bench said in its order dated July 10, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the manufacturer BMW India Private Limited should be directed to pay an amount of Rs 50 lakh in full and final settlement of all disputed claims. The manufacturer has to pay this amount to the complainant through electronic fund transfer on or before August 10, 2024.”
15 year old fraud case
This is a 15-year-old fraud case pending before the Supreme Court. The complainant had accused BMW India Private Limited and some members of its management of committing fraud. The complainant in this case is GVR Infra Projects. In 2012, the High Court had ordered the company in this case to provide a new car to the customer. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court against this order.
Ending the 15-year long legal battle, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiawala and Justice Manoj Mishra directed payment of Rs 50 lakh by BMW to GVR Infra Projects as compensation as a full and final settlement of the dispute.
BMW had proposed to replace the new car
According to LiveLaw.in, BMW had offered to replace the faulty car with a new one, but the complainant refused and demanded his money back with interest. BMW’s lawyer argued before the High Court that they are always ready and willing to comply with the High Court’s direction. They had written a letter to the complainant demanding the return of the old car.
what did the supreme court say
The Supreme Court said in the case that the company manufacturer has not challenged the order of the High Court and has expressed its willingness to replace the old car. The court said, “Keeping in mind the nature of the dispute, it is limited to only a defective vehicle. Therefore, we are of the view that allowing the prosecution to continue at this stage, almost 15 years after the dispute, does not serve the purposes of justice.” The Supreme Court took the decision under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the payment of compensation to the complainant. The court also said that if the complainant had accepted the offer to replace the car in 2012, the value of that vehicle would have decreased till today.
