Top News

Lately, we have been seeing many cases where customers have approached the courts after facing issues with a product or vehicle they purchased. One such incident has now surfaced online, where a Mahindra dealer that failed to deliver a car to a customer has been ordered to refund the full amount (Rs. 8,71 lakh) along with 12 % interest for over 13 years. This comes up to over Rs. 30 lakh. Additionally, the dealer and manufacturer were asked to pay the customer over Rs. 2 lakh as litigation and mental hardship costs. The total adds up to over Rs 32 lakh.

The incident is from Puducherry, and the case is over a decade old. In 2013, C. Unnikrishnan booked a brand-new Mahindra XUV500 W6 variant from Mahindra dealer Rajarajan & Sons. He paid an advance amount of Rs 40,000 at the time of booking.

The remaining Rs 8,69,200 was transferred directly to the dealer by the bank. The final payment was made on 28 October 2013. After receiving the payment, the dealer promised to deliver the vehicle within a week, citing a temporary shortage of stock as the reason for the delay. However, the vehicle was never delivered to the customer.

In 2015, Unnikrishnan approached the District Consumer Commission. After examining the facts of the case, the commission held the dealer responsible and ordered it to refund Rs 8,71,200 along with 6 percent annual interest. It also directed the dealer to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses. The commission did not hold the manufacturer responsible, as it concluded that the failure to deliver the vehicle was the dealer’s fault.

Unnikrishnan was not satisfied with the ruling and decided to approach the State Consumer Commission. He sought a full refund of Rs 9,36,200, which he claimed to have paid, along with 24 percent interest and an additional Rs 2 lakh as compensation. He also argued that the earlier order had ignored the Rs 2 lakh he had spent defending a separate case filed by the bank over the unpaid vehicle loan.

The dealer argued before the commission that the complainant was not a consumer because he had purchased the vehicle for business purposes. The dealer also claimed that Mahindra alone was responsible, as it had merely forwarded the payment and had no control over the vehicle’s delivery.

However, Mahindra’s counsel argued that the complainant had not alleged any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the company’s part. The manufacturer also maintained that it had no direct dealings with the customer.

After analysing the arguments presented by all the parties, the bench comprising Presiding Member S. Sundaravadivelu and Member S. Oumasanguery rejected the dealer’s argument. The commission observed that since the vehicle was never delivered, the complainant could neither use it for business nor earn any profit from it. Therefore, he continued to qualify as a consumer under the law.

The commission also noted that the funds had ultimately been transferred to Mahindra, and the company was aware that the customer was waiting for the vehicle. Despite this, the vehicle was never delivered.

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the commission observed that an agent cannot be held solely responsible for a company’s actions when the company itself has been specifically made a party to the case. Based on this, it held Mahindra responsible for the non-delivery of the vehicle. However, the dealer was not absolved of responsibility either, as it had placed the purchase order nearly eight months after receiving the booking.

The commission directed Mahindra to refund Rs 8,71,200 along with 12 percent annual interest from 2 April 2015 until the amount is fully paid. It also ordered the company to pay Rs 1,50,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs. The dealer was separately directed to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation. All payments, except the refund amount and the applicable interest, must be made within 30 days, failing which an additional 8 percent interest will be applicable.