‘Misleading’ advertisement costs car manufacturer Rs 2 lakh in consumer case

The commission, therefore, held Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. guilty of “harassment” and “mental agony” while directing it to pay the buyer Rs 2 lakh in compensation and Rs 5,000 litigation costs.

Fully automatic or semi-automatic?

The complainant alleged that he had booked a Nissan Magnite EZ-Shift Automatic transmission in November 2023 after seeing print and online advertisements describing it as an “Automatic” vehicle.

He purchased the car for Rs 10.4 lakh and took delivery in January 2024.

According to the complainant, he later discovered that the vehicle was not a fully automatic car but a semi automatic/Automated Manual Transmission (AMT).

The complainant further contended that after he issued a legal notice questioning the advertisements, Nissan corrected and modified the contents of its advertisement.

The complainant submitted that had he known that the vehicle was only a semi-automatic/manual transmission vehicle, he would not have purchased the same.

Nissan denied the allegations, arguing that the features of the vehicle had been fully explained through its official website, brochures, and dealership staff before the purchase.

It further contended that the vehicle had no manufacturing defects and alleged that the buyer repeatedly raised complaints despite service inspections finding no faults.

It was further submitted that the complainant, after verifying the vehicle for the features available, had taken delivery.

The company denied the allegations that the complainant was misled by false and misleading advertisements as well as unfair trade practices indulged in by the company in promoting their products.

‘Unfair trade practice’

The commission observed that Nissan’s decision to alter the advertisements after receiving the legal notice supported the complainant’s contention that the original advertisements did not correctly depict the nature of the vehicle.

“The very act of correcting the advertisement after receipt of the complainant’s notice lends support to the contention of the complainant that the earlier advertisement did not correctly depict the true nature of the vehicle,” the order read.

The commission noted that the conduct of advertising the vehicle as “Automatic” and thereby inducing prospective purchasers to buy the vehicle amounts to a false representation regarding the characteristics and quality of the product.

“This Commission is of the considered view that opposite party No.1, by promoting the vehicle through false and misleading advertisements and subsequently correcting the same only after receipt of the legal notice, has indulged in an unfair trade practice,” the commission remarked.

Relief to buyer

• It further added that such a misleading advertisement is clearly intended to promote sales and attract consumers under an erroneous impression.
• “Consumer is entitled to rely upon the representations made in the advertisements of a manufacturer or dealer, and any deviation from such representation constitutes an unfair trade practice,” the order read.
• Considering the facts and documentary evidence, the commission held that Nissan published and circulated advertisements representing the vehicle as an “Automatic” car; acting upon which the complainant was induced to purchase the vehicle.
• “The claim of the complainant is held to be genuine. We deem it just and proper to grant compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with interest for unfair trade practice of the opposite party no. 1 (Nissan),” the commission ordered.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh helpline: 0866-2551431) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.