In Brief
This case involved three consolidated appeals addressing whether a company purchasing vehicles for its directors' personal use qualifies as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court held that the dominant purpose of purchase—not the identity of the purchaser—determines consumer status. A company purchasing cars for directors' personal use without nexus to profit-generating activity remains a consumer. The Court also addressed airbag safety failures in Mercedes-Benz cars: failure to disclose deployment triggers constituted unfair trade practice, and non-deployment of airbags despite frontal impact indicated deficient service. The appellant manufacturer was ordered to refund Rs. 36 lakhs with Rs. 5 lakhs each awarded for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.