Journalism of Courage
Used car dealer ‘conceals’ SUV’s accident history, Kerala buyer wins Rs 2.56 lakh
The commission accepted the complainant's case that after vehicle was returned due to the alleged defects, the dealer repaid the bank loan and refunded Rs 4.4 lakh, but failed to refund the remaining Rs 2.21 lakh.
The commission was dealing with a plea of a man seeking relief regarding his car. (AI-generated Image)
A District Consumer Commission in Kollam held a used car dealer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after allegedly concealing a vehicle’s accident history and defects advertised on OLX. It directed the dealer to refund the remaining Rs 2.21 lakh to the buyer.
A bench of president S K Sreela and member Stanley Harold also awarded Rs 25,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 litigation costs.
“There is nothing on record to show that the opposite parties honoured their commitment or repaid the balance amount. The opposite parties, though served with notice, remained ex parte and did not choose to contest the proceedings or adduce any evidence to rebut the complainant’s case,” the commission said on July 29.
The order noted that there is no dispute regarding the purchase of the car by the complainant from the opposite parties or the consideration paid therefor.
Buyer alleged hidden vehicle damage
The complainant purchased a Toyota Innova Crysta from the car dealer on an online marketplace platform, for a total sale consideration of Rs 23.25 lakh. The complainant contended that he purchased the car after seeing an advertisement published by the opposite parties on the OLX platform.
According to the complainant, out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs 16.78 lakh was disbursed by Federal Bank directly to the account of the opposite parties as a car loan, and the balance amount of Rs 6.60 lakh was paid by the complainant.
The complainant claimed that within a few days of the purchase, the car developed serious gear-related defects. Upon inspection by a qualified mechanic, it was allegedly found that the vehicle had been involved in an accident and that the front windscreen, front left door glass, portions of the bonnet, and certain other parts had been replaced.
Story continues below this ad
It was the complainant’s case that these material facts regarding the accident history and the vehicle’s defects were deliberately suppressed by the opposite parties at the time of sale, thereby amounting to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The complainant further submitted that he returned the vehicle to the opposite parties, and the dealer repaid the bank loan and refunded Rs 4.4 lakh to the complainant but allegedly failed to return the remaining Rs 2.21 lakh, despite undertaking before the police to do so.
Aggrieved by the non-payment, the complainant approached the district consumer commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The opposite parties did not file any written version or appear before the commission; as a result, the proceedings were conducted ex parte, and no evidence or arguments were produced to rebut the complainant’s allegations.
Refund promise remained unfulfilled: Order
The commission noted that there was no dispute regarding the complainant’s purchase of the Toyota Innova Crysta or the consideration paid. It accepted the complainant’s case that after the vehicle was returned due to the alleged defects, the dealer repaid the bank loan and refunded Rs 4.4 lakh, but failed to refund the remaining Rs 2.21 lakh.
Story continues below this ad
It further relied on the police acknowledgment receipt and the undertaking executed by the opposite parties before the police, in which they had agreed to refund the balance amount within the stipulated time.
The commission found no evidence that this undertaking had been honoured. Since the opposite parties did not contest the proceedings or produce any evidence to rebut the complainant’s case, the complainant’s affidavit and documentary evidence remained unchallenged and credible.
The commission directed the dealer to pay the complainant Rs 2.21 lakh. It also awarded Rs 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, payable within 45 days.
Takeaway
This judgment reinforces that used-car dealers can be held accountable for concealing a vehicle’s accident history and failing to honour refund commitments. It also highlights that unchallenged documentary evidence and undertakings before authorities can be sufficient to establish deficiency in service and secure consumer relief under the Consumer Protection Act.
Story continues below this ad
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Kerala: 1800-425-1550) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Don’t miss out on these stories
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog