A consumer court in Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, has penalized a local Honda dealer for selling a 2018 model Honda Amaze as a 2019 model without disclosing its prior registration and a shortened warranty period.
The Sri Ganganagar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising President Rajan Kukkad and members Sanjay Bhatiya and Rajiv Kaushik, ruled that the dealer engaged in unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. The commission ordered the dealer to pay Rs 2 lakh in compensation for unfair trade practices and Rs 10,000 to cover litigation expenses.
According to the commission’s June 29 ruling, evidence conclusively showed the dealer misrepresented the vehicle’s manufacturing year to the buyer, resulting in physical, mental, and financial hardship. The bench rejected the dealer’s defense that the buyer had been informed about the vehicle’s manufacturing year and its reduced warranty.
Discovery Of Prior Registration
The matter dates back to January 2019, when the buyer booked a Honda Amaze with the dealership by paying a cash deposit of Rs 21,000. On February 3, 2019, the dealer issued an invoice for Rs 7.28 lakh, which included charges for insurance and an extended warranty. The buyer secured a bank loan to complete the payment and subsequently took delivery of the vehicle.
The transaction began to unravel on February 12, 2019, when the buyer took the car to an authorized service center for its first maintenance check. Workshop records linked to the engine and chassis numbers revealed that the vehicle had already been registered under the name of a Delhi resident, with its warranty commencing on October 30, 2018. This meant the buyer was legally the second owner of the car.
Following this discovery, the buyer had the vehicle evaluated by a professional mechanic. The inspection revealed that the car’s odometer had been rolled back and the vehicle had been cosmetically refurbished with new plastic coverings to appear brand new. The buyer asserted that the three-month loss in the warranty period depreciated the vehicle’s value by approximately 25 percent.
Dealer Fails To Prove Discount Claim
In its defense, the dealership claimed the buyer was fully informed during booking that the car had been previously registered under another customer’s name because that individual’s bank loan was rejected. The dealer maintained that the warranty period began from the date of the initial booking, and argued that the buyer had accepted a discount of Rs 77,806 to compensate for the three months of elapsed warranty.
However, the commission dismissed these assertions, noting that the dealer failed to produce any documentary evidence confirming that a discount was ever granted. The invoice provided by the buyer showed no record of such a price reduction. Furthermore, the commission noted that a tax invoice in the name of the Delhi resident was issued on July 12, 2019, confirming the prior sale.
The commission also declined to accept an affidavit submitted on behalf of Honda, citing that the manufacturer had not filed a formal written statement on the record, and the affidavit could not be admitted as evidence because it was not written in Hindi, the official language of the commission.
