Delhi HC restores BMW India as party in suit filed by buyer of alleged “defective” second-hand BMW car

The Delhi High Court has restored BMW India as a party to a suit filed before the Additional District Judge by a buyer of a second-hand BMW 320D. The car had burnt down due to certain defects within three months of its purchase..The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan in an appeal against the order passed by the ADJ in Mohinder Jeet Singh’s suit for recovery of a sum of Rs 19,80,000 as damages from all the defendants, jointly and severally. The ADJ had deleted BMW India and Deutsche Motoren from the array of parties in the suit..Apart from praying to make BMW India and Deutsche Motoren defendants in the case, the plaintiff also proceeded against the dealer of the second car, the previous owner of the car, the insurance company, and the agency which had inspected the car prior to its purchase..BMW India sought to delete its name on the ground that the suit was one for a claim arising out of an insurance policy. Although it did not dispute its status as the manufacturer of the car in question, it contended that the warranty had expired even prior to the purchase of the car by the plaintiff..The Court observed that in general, it is for the plaintiff in a suit to decide against whom it wishes to proceed..It further added that impleadment of a party can be on the basis that it is a necessary or a proper party to the proceedings. The order states,.“A necessary party is one against whom the plaintiff seeks relief or in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed. A proper party is one against whom relief may not be sought but whose presence is essential for the determination of the questions involved in the suit.”.The Court, therefore, said that deletion of a party as a defendant in a suit was possible only upon arriving at a determination that the party was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit..In light of the present case, the Court stated that the question for determination was whether the plaintiff had disclosed a cause of action against BMW India and Deutsche Motoren, entitling him to proceed against them..After analyzing the plaint, the Court said the present case was not one in which the plaintiff had failed to plead a cause of action against BMW India and Deutsche Motoren..“As far as the defendant no. 4 (BMW India) is concerned, the plaint makes out a case of a manufacturing defect which led to the fire in the car. The defendant no.4 does not deny the fact that it has manufactured the car, but disputes liability on the ground that the warranty had expired. There is a categorical assertion in the plaint that the car was inspected by defendant no.5 ( Deutsche Motoren), and a report was provided to the plaintiff. In its reply to the application filed by the defendant no.5, the plaintiff has also averred that the defendant no.5 had raised an invoice on him for this purpose.”.The Court remarked that the trial court proceeded primarily on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to adduce any documentary evidence to support his case. However, such analysis of the evidence by the trial Court was unwarranted at this stage of the suit, and was a matter which ought to have been reserved for trial, the Court added..“..a person cannot be impleaded as a party only on the basis that it has relevant evidence..”, it said..In view of the above, the order of the trial court was set aside and BMW India and Deutsche Motoren were restored to their original positions in the suit..The Court also stated that in the event that BMW India and Deutsche Motoren are found not liable to compensate the plaintiff, they will be entitled to seek costs in their favour..The plaintiff was represented by Advocate Faheem Shah..BMW was represented by Advocate Aditya V Singh..[Read Judgment].Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.