A Porsche dealership in Gurugram has been ordered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to pay a client from Meerut INR 18 lakh as compensation for giving false information about the year that the car was manufactured.
Inder Jit Singh, a member of the NCDRC, and Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, who served on a division bench, noted that the act amounted to a lack of service and an unfair business practice.
The firm was ordered by the commission to pay the complaint, Praveen Kumar Mittal, Rs 25,000 in litigation costs. Within three months of the order date, the Porsche centre is required to make the payments.
Mittal said that he purchased a diesel Porsche Cayenne for INR 80 lakh from the Porsche Center in Gurugram on February 28, 2014. He said that the agents and sales representative informed him that the automobile was made in 2014 when he was finalizing the model.
Additionally, he said that they told him that if the two-year first warranty was renewed before it expired, the car’s warranty would be increased to ten years.
Mittal said that the Gurgaon shop had given him a sale invoice, sale certificate, temporary certificate of registration, and Form 22 for first compliance with pollution rules and insurance on February 28, 2014, all of which were dated.
The Meerut resident, however, claimed that he learned the automobile was made in 2013 rather than 2014 when he intended to sell it again in 2016.
Mittal, who was represented by attorneys Vivek Narayan Sharma and Mahima Bhardwaj, claimed that Porsche Centre, Gurgaon, had manufactured his automobile “illegally and with intent to cheat” him by falsifying all of the documentation related to it and claiming the incorrect year.
In its statement, The Porsche Centre said that Mittal was informed that the automobile was manufactured in 2013, to which he had consented and purchased it for INR 80 lakh, as well as that he had received a reduction of INR 11.90 lakh off the entire price.
The center reportedly claimed that Mittal was given the option of purchasing an additional two years of automobile warranty, but he allegedly declined and indicated he would wait until the original two years had passed.
The business also claimed that the center had issued a letter dated February 28, 2014, as well as a Form 21 (sale certificate), all of which contained a description of the automobile and stated that the year of production was 2013.
The center said that it had instructed Mittal to have the vehicle registered by them, but he reportedly responded that he had connections at the Regional Transport Office and would register the vehicle himself for the 2014 model year.
The center informed the bench that they had cautioned Mittal not to do such actions since they were against the law, unethical, and would cause him issues. It also submitted a copy of the interim certificate it had supplied along with other papers to the Commission.
The Porsche Centre accused Mittal of having “mala fide intentions” by labelling his lawsuit as “frivolous and vexatious, exaggerated and mischievous.”
Regarding Mittal’s claim that he was denied an extended warranty in 2016 because Porsche India Ltd.’s system had the car’s year of manufacture entered incorrectly, the Gurgaon Center stated that Mittal had been advised that Porsche India had discontinued providing warranties.
The NCDRC examined the papers and found that they were not duplicates of one another and that the documents submitted by both parties not only had distinct years of production but also different authorized signatures.
The panel determined that one of the two sets of documents—one generated by Mittal and the other by Porsche Centre—could not be authentic.
The NCDRC acknowledged the complainant’s papers as authentic since they were received from a public entity under the Right to Information Act. It specifically took into account the fact that Porsche Centre’s evidence acknowledged Form 21 as being generated by Mittal and stating 2014 as the year of manufacture.
The committee also mandated that the police conduct a probe into two papers, Form 21 and a temporary certificate of registration issued by Porsche Centre, Gurugram, which had the signature of a different authorized signatory from the one who had provided Mittal with the two documents.
It instructed the police to take the proper steps if the Porsche Centre documents were found to be falsified and fake.
The NCDRC declined Mittal’s request for a new automobile of a comparable make in place of his old car or a refund of more than INR 80 lakh plus additional charges he paid in purchasing the car because he had been using it since the time of its acquisition. For “acute mental and psychological sufferings, unfair trade practices, and deficiency in service” brought on by the corporation, Mittal had also requested damages in the amount of INR 1 crore.
The commission, however, said that he was entitled to compensation since the Porsche shop had provided subpar service and engaged in dishonest business practices.
