Chandigarh resident sold used car: Manufacturer, dealer penalised
The car manufacturer and dealer were directed to jointly and severally refund the invoice price of ₹8,77,050 to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised a Jalandhar-based car dealer for selling a used car as brand new to a Chandigarh resident.
The commission also held M/s Honda Cars Limited guilty of not taking action against the car dealer, Lally Motors.
The complainant, Anu Garg of Sector 18-D, submitted before the commission that she booked a Honda WR-V car from Lally Motors in 2019. But when she went for delivery in July 2019, the agency insisted to take a lower variant car (WR-V 1.5 MT) with assurance to fix a rear view camera and refund the remaining amount.
On the agency’s insistence, she chose the said car. But when her husband took the car for service in Mohali in March 2022, he was informed that the vehicle’s warranty will expire on March 29, 2022.
The complainant approached Lally Motors, who acknowledged that it was a clerical mistake, but expressed their inability to correct it. The agency offered to extend the car’s warranty by one year and get all defects rectified free of cost, along with and free car service for five years as settlement.
Garg contended that the said car was used. She was sold an old car for ₹8.77 lakh, the price of a brand new car then, and issued a hand-written bill. She was not provided any sale certificate showing the vehicle’s manufacture month.
In its response, M/s Honda Cars Limited stated that it sold vehicles to the authorised dealers on no-name basis for further sale to potential customers. “They do not provide after-sale services to end users and it is for the car agency to undertake necessary activities. Even otherwise no manufacturing defect has been highlighted which would warrant impleading them,” they argued.
Lally Motors claimed that Garg filed a false complaint to defame them. They alleged that they bought the vehicle from Rajasthan in February 2019 and sold it to the complainant in July 2019. Stating that there was no deficiency on their part, they sought dismissal of the complaint.
The commission, in its order dated September 12, ordered: “In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that it is proved on record that opposition parties had sold the car to the complainant via misrepresentation and using unfair means. The Consumer Protection Act has given right to the consumer in case of unfair trade practice and false representation made in the course of selling goods.”
It observed: “We are of the opinion that the act of Lally Motors to sell an old car to the complainant by misrepresentation and later on not taking any action against the unfair trade practice of Lally Motors proves deficiency on the part of both.”
Hence, the car manufacturer and agency were directed to jointly and severally refund the invoice price of ₹8,77,050 to the complainant with interest @9 per annum. They were also told to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and ₹10,000 as litigation cost.
