A Gujarat consumer court has delivered a significant verdict, penalizing authorized Mercedes-Benz dealers in Ahmedabad and Surat for misleading a customer. The dealers have been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to the buyer for failing to disclose the vehicle's true manufacturing year and presenting an older model as new.
The Case of the Undisclosed Manufacturing Date
The dispute dates back to October 2015, when Surat resident Nilesh Davariya purchased a Mercedes-Benz C-Class (C 220 CDI) model. He bought the car from Landmark Car Pvt Ltd in Surat, paying a total of Rs 41.51 lakh for the vehicle itself and an additional Rs 75,655 to the Surat Regional Transport Office (RTO). The trouble began after he took delivery of the car.
Davariya discovered that the car's registration certificate listed the manufacturing date as December 2014. He alleged that the dealer had persuaded him to buy that specific model without ever informing him that it was manufactured the previous year. The complainant argued that this non-disclosure of a crucial fact adversely affected the car's resale value.
Legal Battle and Arguments from Both Sides
After issuing legal notices to the dealers and the manufacturer in 2016, Davariya approached the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. He sought Rs 12 lakh for the depreciation in the car's value and an additional Rs 7.50 lakh as compensation for the mental agony caused by the ordeal.
In their defense, Mercedes-Benz India Pvt Ltd submitted that its dealers are fully and independently responsible for sales transactions. The manufacturer also contended that since there was no manufacturing defect in the car, it should not be held liable. The dealers, on the other hand, contested the complaint. They claimed that Davariya had knowingly chosen the December 2014-manufactured vehicle after being offered a discount. They also raised objections regarding the maintainability and jurisdiction of the complaint.
Commission's Verdict and Final Order
After hearing all arguments, the consumer commission concluded that the dealers were guilty. The order stated, "This commission concludes that Opponent No. 2 and 3 (the dealers in Ahmedabad and Surat respectively) are guilty of misrepresentation and unfair trade practice, and they alone are liable to compensate the complainant. Opponent No. 1 (the manufacturer) is not liable, as no negligence or misrepresentation on its part was proved."
The commission directed the dealers to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation for the unfair trade practice. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Rs 25,000 for the mental agony and harassment suffered by Davariya and Rs 10,000 towards his legal expenses, bringing the total payout to Rs 3.35 lakh.
This ruling underscores the responsibility of automobile dealers to provide complete and transparent information to consumers, ensuring they are not misled about critical details like the year of manufacture, which directly impacts a vehicle's value.
