KUALA LUMPUR: Mercedes-Benz Malaysia Sdn Bhd has failed in its bid to have lawsuits over alleged defects in its GLE 450 4M AMG luxury sports utility vehicle (SUV) dismissed.
High Court judicial commissioner Datin Zalita Zaidan upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the company's application to strike out lawsuits brought by Beyond Natural Group Sdn Bhd and two individuals, S. Aruna and G. Hanulraj.
The lawsuits concern alleged mechanical and electronic defects in the SUV, including battery failure, airbag warning malfunctions and a fire underneath a car seat.
The court was told that the vehicle was ordered from authorised Mercedes-Benz dealer Hap Seng Star Sdn Bhd on June 25, 2022.
It was registered under Beyond Natural Group and financed through a hire-purchase agreement dated Oct 21.
The vehicle was primarily driven by Aruna and occasionally used by Hanulraj for daily and business travel.
The plaintiffs claimed that the SUV began experiencing serious mechanical and electronic problems during the manufacturer's warranty period.
On Dec 8, a warning stating "the front-passenger airbag disabled" appeared on the vehicle's instrument panel, raising concerns over passenger safety.
On Dec 23, another warning stating "48V Battery See Owner's Manual" appeared, leaving the vehicle unable to start.
The plaintiffs filed lawsuits seeking damages for alleged breaches of statutory guarantees under the Consumer Protection Act and Sale of Goods Act, breach of warranty, misrepresentation and negligence.
Aruna and Hanulraj also sought damages for pain, suffering, stress and trauma allegedly caused by the incidents.
Mercedes-Benz Malaysia, the wholesale distributor of Mercedes-Benz vehicles in the country, applied to strike out the claims on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue.
The company argued that the bank was the vehicle's legal owner under the hire-purchase agreement, while Beyond Natural Group was merely the hirer.
It also argued that Aruna and Hanulraj were not parties to the purchase agreement and had no contractual or ownership rights over the vehicle.
In her grounds of judgment dated Oct 19, Zalita said the allegations raised issues that required a full trial, including expert testimony and cross-examination.
"The question of whether recurring 48V battery shutdowns and airbag instrument warnings not forgetting the fire which occurred underneath the car seat, constitute inherent latent defects issue, breach of implied conditions, or negligence that require expert witness testimony and cross-examination at trial," she said.
Zalita rejected the company's arguments, saying the hire-purchase arrangement did not automatically deprive the plaintiffs of their right to pursue legal action.
"The 1st Defendant's contention that hire-purchase financing completely extinguishes locus standi is legally flawed," she said.
The court said actual users and beneficial purchasers who relied on representations or warranties concerning a vehicle's quality retained statutory rights to claim damages.
Zalita said striking out the claims at this stage could create an unacceptable situation in which only financial institutions, despite having no knowledge of a vehicle's technical problems, would have the legal standing to sue.
"Striking out their claims at an interlocutory stage would create an unacceptable absurdity in consumer law where financial institutions, who possess zero knowledge of vehicle technical defects would be the sole entities with standing, thereby insulating manufacturers and wholesale distributors from product liability."
Zalita said Mercedes-Benz Malaysia had failed to establish grounds for striking out the claims.
The court also ordered the company to pay RM14,000 in costs to the three plaintiffs.
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd