11 June 2024 Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights   |   RTI – Right to Information >> Miscellaneous  

A recent consumer court case involved a buyer's dispute with a car dealership over a Mercedes Benz purchase and a VIP registration number. The buyer claimed they paid extra for a VIP number (1111) that wasn't delivered and incurred parking and insurance costs due to a lack of registration. The court, however, ruled in favor of the dealership, finding the complaint misleading and riddled with false information.

Buyer's Allegations:

The buyer's complaint centered on two main issues: the missing VIP registration number and the inability to use the car. They argued that they paid an additional Rs. 50,000 for the VIP number but never received it. Additionally, they claimed the car remained unregistered, forcing them to pay for parking and insurance despite being unable to drive it legally. As compensation, they sought reimbursement for loan payments, insurance, parking charges, mental distress, and litigation costs.

Dealership's Defense:

The dealership countered the buyer's claims, pointing out that the Rs. 50,000 was a booking fee for the car, not a specific VIP number. They clarified that issuing VIP numbers falls outside their authority and is handled by the Road Transport Authority. Furthermore, the dealership presented evidence that the car was registered in May 2008 with registration certificate number CH04C-1373. They also revealed a crucial detail - the buyer had previously filed a police complaint regarding the same car and settled it with the dealership for Rs. 2,00,000.

Court's Ruling:

The court's decision went in favor of the dealership. The judge found the buyer's complaint to be "frivolous and vexatious," containing false accusations and misrepresentations. It was evident that the buyer deliberately concealed the previous settlement with the dealership and misled the court about the car's registration status.

Consequences for Buyer:

Due to the misleading information presented, the court dismissed the buyer's complaint entirely. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed on the buyer for pursuing the case with false pretenses. This penalty amount was divided, with Rs. 50,000 going to the car dealership and the remaining Rs. 50,000 directed towards the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

  Right to Information Act, 2005    Consumer Protection Act, 1986