New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed a Porsche showroom in Gurugram to pay over Rs 18 lakh as compensation to a Meerut-based customer for misrepresenting the year of manufacture of a car sold to him.
The division bench of Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and NCDRC member Dr Inder Jit Singh observed that the act amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
“The act of OP-2 (Porsche Centre Gurgaon) in selling a car of 2013 year of manufacture as 2014 year of manufacture amounts to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice, making him liable to compensate the complainant for the same,” the commission held in its order dated 24 April, the copy of which is with ThePrint.
The bench imposed a compensation of Rs 10 lakh with interest. “The OPs (OP-1 (Porsche India Pvt Ltd) & OP-2 (Porsche Centre, Gurgaon) shall pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the complainant along with simple interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 28.02.2014 (date of purchase of car) till the date of payment,” read the order.
The commission also imposed Rs 25,000 litigation cost on the company to be paid to the complainant, Praveen Kumar Mittal. The Porsche centre has been asked to make the payments within three months from the date of the order.
Also Read: A 20-year battle for Rs 20 — lawyer who sued Railways & won says it wasn’t just about money
‘Intent to cheat’
Mittal submitted that on 28 February 2014, he bought a diesel Porsche Cayenne for Rs 80 lakh from the Porsche Centre in Gurugram. He alleged that while finalising the model, he was told by the agents and sales executive that the car was manufactured in 2014.
He also claimed that they informed him that the warranty of the car will be extended for 10 years, in case of renewal before expiry of the initial warranty of two years.
Mittal further submitted that he was issued a sale invoice, sale certificate, and a temporary certificate of registration dated 28 February 2014 along with Form 22 for initial compliance with pollution standards and insurance by the Gurgaon outlet.
However, the Meerut resident alleged that he found out that the car was manufactured in 2013 and not 2014 when he decided to resell it in 2016.
Mittal, represented by his lawyers Vivek Narayan Sharma and Mahima Bhardwaj, accused Porsche Centre, Gurgaon, of fabricating all documents pertaining to his car, mentioning the wrong year of manufacturing “illegally and with intent to cheat” him.
‘Frivolous’ complaint
The Porsche Centre, in its submission, contended that Mittal was informed that the car’s year of manufacture was 2013, to which he had agreed and bought it for Rs 80 lakh, and was also given a discount of Rs 11.90 lakh over the total price.
The centre also argued that Mittal was offered an extended warranty for the car, but he allegedly said he would purchase the same once his two-year warranty expired.
The company also said that the centre issued a letter dated 28 February 2014 and Form 21 (sale certificate) where the description of the car was given, and in all these documents, the year of manufacture was 2013.
Calling Mittal’s complaint “frivolous and vexatious, exaggerated and mischievous,” the Porsche Centre accused him of having “mala fide intentions”.
The centre alleged that it had told Mittal to get the car registered by them, but he allegedly said that he had some contacts in the Regional Transport Office and would get the car registered with the manufacturing year 2014 himself.
While submitting a copy of the temporary certificate provided by it along with other documents to the Commission, the centre told the bench that they advised Mittal not to do such things as they were illegal and unethical and would create problems for him.
“Complainant has mala fide intentions from the very beginning to get the manufacturing year changed from 2013 to 2014 to get a good resale value, however, when he did not succeed after plying the car for almost four years, the complainant approached the Commission,” the Porsche Centre stated.
On Mittal’s allegation that he could not get an extended warranty in 2016 due to an incorrect entry of the car’s year of manufacture in the system of Porsche India Ltd., the Gurgaon Centre said Mittal had been informed that Porsche India had stopped issuing those.
Also Read: Only 4 of 28 state consumer bodies at full strength, SC says ‘completely unacceptable’
‘Same documents, different signatories’
After examining the documents, the NCDRC observed that the documents produced by both parties not only bear different years of manufacture, but also different authorised signatories, indicating that they were prepared separately and were not copies of the same documents.
The commission said both sets of documents — one produced by Mittal and other by Porsche Centre — cannot be genuine, and one of them was forged.
Considering that the documents provided by the complainant were obtained from a public authority under the Right to Information Act, the NCDRC accepted them as genuine. It especially considered the fact that Porsche Centre’s affidavit also admitted Form 21 as produced by Mittal, which had mentioned the year of manufacture as 2014.
The commission also ordered an investigation by the police into two documents, namely, the Form 21 and a temporary certificate of registration produced by Porsche Centre, Gurugram, which had the signature of an authorised signatory different from the one who had issued the two documents to Mittal.
It directed the police to take appropriate action if the documents produced by Porsche Centre were found to be false and fabricated.
Considering that Mittal had been using the car from the time of its purchase, the NCDRC did not grant his demand of a new car of similar make in lieu of his old car or a refund over Rs 80 lakh, with other costs incurred by him in buying the car. Mittal had also demanded damages of Rs 1 crore for “acute mental and psychological sufferings, unfair trade practices, deficiency in service” caused by the company.
However, the commission stated that he was entitled to compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Porsche showroom.
(Edited by Richa Mishra)
Also Read: No chambers or even staff washrooms — bleak state of India’s consumer courts reaches SC