NCDRC orders Porsche outlet to compensate customer for unfair trade practice
NCDRC orders Porsche outlet to compensate customer for unfair trade practice
The Gurugram-based centre has been directed to pay Rs.18 lakh
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has penalized a Porsche outlet in Gurugram for misrepresenting the year of manufacture of a car sold to a buyer, Praveen Kumar Mittal.
A Coram of presiding members Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Dr Inder Jit Singh observed that the automobile manufacturer’s act of selling a car manufactured in 2013 as one manufactured in 2014 amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This made them liable to compensate the buyer.
The Commission was hearing a plea against Porsche India and Porsche Center, by Mittal alleging that the latter sold a Cayenne vehicle to him for Rs.80 lakh after misrepresenting the manufacturing year.
Mittal alleged that in 2016 when he decided to resell the car, he found out from the prospective buyer that the car was manufactured in 2013 and not in 2014. He contended that with an intent to cheat him, the respondents fabricated the documents of the car. It was not only illegal, but was against consumer rights.
He, therefore, sought a new car of similar make in lieu of the Cayenne. Alternatively, he demanded a refund of the full price of the car along with other expenses incurred by him. Additionally, Mittal sought damages of Rs.1 crore for acute mental and psychological suffering.
However, the Porsche Center argued that the complainant was aware that the car was manufactured in 2013 and because of it, he was offered a discount. It produced documents showing the car was manufactured in 2013.
The centre also claimed that it had offered to register the car for the buyer, but he refused, stating his contact in the Regional Transport Office (RTO), Dehradun, would take care of it and register 2014 as the year of manufacture.
The Porsche centre contended that the complainant had mala fide intention from the beginning and approached the Commission only after failing to get the manufacturing year changed from 2013 to 2014.
The Commission noted that the sets of documents produced by both parties not only mentioned different years of manufacture, but also different authorized signatories, indicating that one set was forged. Since the set produced by the complainant was through a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Commission accepted them as genuine, The set submitted by the respondents was rejected.
The Commission accepted the complainant’s submissions and held that the respondent’s actions amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, making them liable to compensate the complainant. However, since the complainant had used the car since purchase, his plea for providing a new car of the same make or refund of Rs.80 lakh, plus other costs, could not be granted.
NCDRC ordered the respondents to pay Mittal Rs.10 lakh as compensation, along with interest, which amounted to a total of Rs.18 lakh. It also ordered the Gurugram centre to pay the complainant Rs.25,000 as litigation costs.
Furthermore, the Commission ordered that the matter of fabricated documents should be investigated by the police and appropriate action taken.
The complainant was represented by advocates Vivek Narayan Sharma and Mahima Bhardwaj.
