Chennai: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), slapped a fine of Rs 1 lakh on an automobile dealer for selling an used truck to a company. The forum also directed the dealer to refund Rs 10 lakh paid towards purchasing the lorry.
In the petition, M/s SRM Bricks and Agri Firm, represented by its partner R.Raghavan, Mugappair East, submitted that the company decided to purchase a lorry for transporting bricks and approached M/s Rajalakshmi Automobiles Pvt Ltd, Poonamallee, a dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Worli, Mumbai.
The company purchased a tipper lorry for a value of Rs 10.88 lakh as per the proforma issued by the dealer in June, 2015. The dealer informed that the vehicle was made in 2015, and gave a discount of '10,000. During delivery of the vehicle Raghavan noticed that it was operated for about 6147.5 km. The speedometer and driver’s seat were also damaged.
Based on his complaint, two representatives of the agency inspected the vehicle on July 10, 2015 and admitted that the vehicle had covered more than 6,000 km when it was sold. In the RTO registration certificate it was revealed that the vehicle was made in 2014. Thus, Mahindra and Mahindra Limited and M/s. Rajalakshmi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. had sold him an old vehicle, stating that it was new.
In the petition, Raghavan sought a direction to the automobile firm and the dealer to take back the vehicle and refund Rs.10.88 lakh with interest of 24 per cent per annum from June 16, 2015 and pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakh as damages for unfair trade practice and Rs.4 lakh towards deficiency in service.M/s.
Rajalakshmi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd remained absent. In its reply, Mahindra and Mahindra Limited submitted that it cannot comment what transpired between the complainant and dealer. It was nowhere involved in the sale and cannot be held liable for the acts or omissions of the dealer. The bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) president K.Jayabalan and member M.Uyirroli Kannan said that the complainant had proved the charges and the dealer had committed an unfair trade practice.
