The Hoshiarpur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Punjab has directed a pre-owned vehicle dealer to refund Rs 2.51 lakh to a customer after finding that the car sold to him was linked to legal proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and had been blacklisted.
The commission, comprising president Naveen Puri and members Harvimal Dogra and Prem Singh Salaria, held in its October 21 order that the dealer had failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the vehicle’s legal status before selling it. The failure amounted to deficiency in service.
The dealer was directed to refund the purchase price of Rs 2.51 lakh, subject to confirmation that the vehicle remained in its possession, and pay Rs 7,500 towards litigation costs within 45 days.
Dealer Cannot Avoid Liability by Claiming Intermediary Role
The commission rejected the reseller’s contention that its involvement was limited to facilitating the transaction.
It held that a business dealing in second-hand vehicles must take reasonable steps to examine registration records and relevant documents before assuring customers that a vehicle has proper documentation.
The commission found that the circumstances leading to the dispute related to the car’s history before its sale. Although the buyer received official communication about the vehicle in December 2022, the transaction had taken place in July that year.
The commission further observed that the blacklisting restricted the buyer’s ability to use the vehicle without apprehension until its legal status was cleared by the High Court or the competent transport authority.
According to the commission, the dealer’s failure to verify the vehicle’s antecedent legal status and supply a car free from the identified legal difficulty constituted deficiency in service.
Buyer Received Blacklisting Notice Five Months After Purchase
The complainant, a 42-year-old man represented by advocate A S Minhas, purchased the used car for approximately Rs 2.51 lakh from an authorised reseller in July 2022.
The dealer had assured him that the vehicle, previously owned by a Ludhiana resident, was in satisfactory running condition and carried valid documentation.
On December 6, 2022, the buyer received a communication from the Vehicle Registration Authority, Ahmedgarh, informing him that the car had been blacklisted under an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He was required to present the vehicle for inspection and verification in connection with the pending proceedings.
The buyer approached the dealer, which allegedly promised to resolve the problem within a month. According to the complaint, however, no resolution followed.
In March 2023, representatives of the reseller asked him to bring the vehicle to its premises, stating that it had to be produced before the High Court. The complainant subsequently handed over the car.
The dealer later issued a legal notice dated September 30, 2023, offering to repurchase the vehicle for Rs 2,51,700.
The buyer rejected the proposal, maintaining that his total expenditure on the car had exceeded Rs 3.20 lakh. He approached the consumer commission seeking that amount, along with interest and compensation for the alleged deficiency in service.
Reseller Denied Negligence, Cited Valid Registration Transfer
Represented by advocate D D S Nayyar, the dealer disputed the allegations and maintained that the vehicle’s registration certificate had been issued after ownership was transferred to the complainant.
It argued that the successful transfer demonstrated that no objection existed with the transport authorities at the relevant time and that the reseller could not be held responsible for the subsequent developments.
The dealer also submitted that the complainant had left the car at its premises without further communication.
Its counsel pointed out that the vehicle had already been used for more than a year and that the buyback offer had been made as a goodwill gesture. The complainant, however, had declined the proposal.
The reseller denied engaging in any unfair trade practice or providing deficient services.
Commission Orders Refund and Litigation Costs
After examining the material, the commission concluded that the dealer had not established that the complainant retrieved the vehicle from its premises for personal use after handing it over.
It also found that the buyer had not produced a complete, receipt-supported breakdown of the additional expenditure claimed beyond the purchase price.
The commission therefore limited the monetary relief to a refund of Rs 2.51 lakh and litigation costs of Rs 7,500, rather than awarding the entire amount sought in the complaint.
The refund remains conditional upon confirmation that the car is still in the reseller’s possession.
