A consumer body in Rajasthan recently held a Honda dealer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after finding that it sold a 2018 model Honda Amaze as a 2019 model allegedly without disclosing its prior booking and reduced warranty period.
A bench of president Rajan Kukkad and members Sanjay Bhatiya and Rajiv Kaushik of the Sri Ganganagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the Honda dealer to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation for unfair trade practice and Rs 10,000 as litigation costs.
“Based on the facts and evidence available on record, it stands conclusively proved that the dealer sold a 2018 model vehicle to the complainant in 2019 by falsely representing it as a 2019 model, even though three months of the warranty period had already expired,” the commission said on June 29.
The bench said such conduct amounts to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, causing the complainant physical, mental, and financial hardship. “The contention of the dealer that the complainant had been informed that the vehicle was a 2018 model and that three months of the warranty period had already elapsed is unacceptable,” the order reads.
‘Second owner of car’
In January 2019, the complainant booked a Honda Amaze car with a dealer by paying Rs 21,000 in cash. The dealer issued an invoice dated February 3, 2019, for Rs 7.28 lakh, which included the cost of the extended warranty and insurance. The complainant obtained a loan and paid the amount, following which the car was delivered to him.
The complainant sent the car to the authorised dealer for servicing on February 12, 2019. Based on the engine number and chassis number, it was discovered that, according to the company’s records, the car was registered in the name of a Delhi resident and its warranty had started on October 30, 2018. Thus, the complainant turned out to be the second owner of the vehicle. He alleged that the 2018 model car was falsely presented and sold as a 2019 one.
The complainant further got the vehicle inspected by a trained mechanic, who stated that the vehicle’s odometer had been rolled back. It was alleged that the car was refurbished with new plastic coverings and other cosmetic measures before being sold as a new vehicle. As a result, the complainant suffered a loss of approximately 25 per cent of the vehicle’s value due to the reduction of about three months in the warranty period, he claimed.
Story continues below this ad
Buyer was informed: Dealer
The dealer submitted that the complainant had been informed at the time of booking the vehicle that the car had originally been booked in the name of another man. However, since his bank loan was not sanctioned, he did not proceed with the purchase of the vehicle. They stated that, consequently, the vehicle’s warranty began from the date of the original booking.
It was further stated that three months of the warranty period, from November 2018 to January 2019, had already elapsed and on this basis, the complainant was granted an additional discount of Rs 77,806 towards the reduced warranty period, and the complainant accepted this discount before purchasing the vehicle.
The commission said that since no written statement on behalf of Honda was available on record and the language of the commission is Hindi, the affidavit cannot be legally accepted as admissible evidence.
Dealer failed to prove discount: Forum
According to the documentary evidence produced by the complainant, the vehicle had previously been purchased on October 30, 2018, and a tax invoice in the name of a Delhi resident was issued on July 12, 2019. This clearly establishes that Honda had sold a 2018 model vehicle to the complainant by representing it as a 2019 model.
Story continues below this ad
It was claimed that the complainant had been granted an additional discount on account of the expiry of three months of the warranty period. However, the dealer failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of this.
On the contrary, the invoice produced by the complainant does not establish that any such discount was granted.
The commission allowed the complaint against the dealer, holding that it had sold a 2018 model car as a 2019 model and engaged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It directed the dealer to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered and ordered the dealer to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation for unfair trade practice and Rs 10,000 as litigation costs.
Takeaway
This ruling reinforces that vehicle dealers must make full and truthful disclosure about a car’s model year, warranty status, and ownership history. It affirms that unsupported claims cannot defeat documentary evidence and that misrepresenting an older vehicle as a newer model constitutes a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under consumer law.
Story continues below this ad
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Rajasthan helpline: 0141-2372237) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
