The appeals concerning the definition of "commercial purpose" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now 2019). The key issue is whether a company's purchase of a vehicle for its directors' personal use falls under "commercial purpose," thereby excluding the company from the definition of "consumer."

Appeals and Key Judgments:

1. Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2008: Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. (now Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.) challenged the National Commission's judgment, which ruled that the complainant company could file a complaint as the cars were for directors' personal use. The Supreme Court directed a three-member Bench to adjudicate the dispute. The final ruling ordered Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. to compensate the complainant for deficiencies and unfair trade practices.

2. Civil Appeals Nos. 19536-19537 of 2017: Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. challenged the National Commission's orders related to defective airbags in a car. The court upheld the National Commission's decision, ordering compensation for the complainant.

Key Legal Contentions:

• The definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) excludes purchases for "resale" or "commercial purpose," except for self-employment to earn a livelihood.
• Relevant case laws were considered to determine the "commercial purpose" based on the purpose of purchase, its direct nexus to profit generation, and the dominant intention behind the purchase.

I. Civil Appeal No. 353/2008

19-21. Examination and Test Drive of the Vehicle

• The National Commission ordered the vehicle to be examined by the appellant's engineer and later by Local Commissioners due to disputes over temperature readings.
• Reports indicated consistent overheating, with temperature readings higher than the ambient temperature.

22-24. Applications and Findings on Overheating Issue

• The appellant's applications to provide additional insulation or repurchase the car were rejected.
• It was established that the car had an inherent overheating defect causing discomfort to passengers.
• The advice to use air-conditioning to cool the overheated portions was deemed illogical.

25. Conclusion and Compensation

• The National Commission's order to refund Rs. 58 lakhs and take back the car was reviewed.
• Considering the appellant's offer and the complainant's use of the car for 17 years, the court directed a refund of Rs. 36 lakhs.

II. Civil Appeals Nos. 19536-19537/2017 and 2633/2018

26-28. Accident and Complaint Details

• The complainant purchased a Mercedes Benz E-Class car for Rs. 45,38,123/-.
• During an accident, none of the airbags deployed, causing serious injuries to the respondent.

29-30. Maintainability of the Complaint

• The complaint was considered maintainable as the car was not purchased for commercial purposes.

31-33. Arguments and Evidence

• Appellants argued no defect in the airbags; the complainants countered with evidence of misrepresentation and non-disclosure by the appellants.
• The National Commission found that the appellants had not disclosed critical information about the airbags' deployment.

34-38. National Commission's Observations

• The Commission noted the lack of disclosure in the owner's manual about the conditions for airbag deployment.
• It was concluded that non-disclosure constituted "unfair trade practice."

39-40. Final Orders

• The court upheld the National Commission's decision, dismissing the appeals.
• The appellant was ordered to pay compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.