1 month ago
Dealer, Mercedes-Benz India ordered to pay buyer Rs 10 lakh
A man in Delhi bought a brand-new Mercedes-Benz car.
He paid a lot of money for it and got a warranty.
Later, when he took the car for a routine check-up, he saw that the company's records said the car had been sold months before he actually bought it.
That made him worry that the car might not really be new.
The car dealer and the car maker said the car was new.
They explained that another customer had once been billed for the car, but that order was cancelled before the car was delivered.
The computer records still kept the old date, and nobody could change it.
The court said the buyer should have been told about this before the sale.
So the court ordered both the dealer and the car company to pay him money for not being fully honest.
Because of this case, car companies and dealers must be careful to give buyers the full story about a vehicle.
The South Delhi District Consumer Commission ordered T and T Motors and Mercedes-Benz India to pay Rs 5 lakh each — Rs 10 lakh total — for unfair trade practice.
The complainant bought a new Mercedes-Benz for Rs 50.72 lakh on December 12, 2018, with a standard three-year, unlimited-mileage warranty.
In 2020, a routine service invoice revealed the vehicle's first registration date as July 25, 2018, nearly five months before the actual purchase.
T and T Motors said the car had earlier been billed to another customer in July 2018 but that sale was cancelled before delivery, leaving a non-editable date in the manufacturer's software.
Mercedes-Benz India denied liability citing a principal-to-principal sale, but the commission noted it submitted only a few pages of its 50-page dealership agreement.
- Who
- A Delhi consumer who bought a 'new' Mercedes-Benz, dealer T and T Motors, manufacturer Mercedes-Benz India, and the South Delhi District Consumer Commission
- What
- The commission ordered the dealer and manufacturer to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation for failing to disclose that records showed the car's purchase date as July 25, 2018
- Where
- New Delhi, India — South Delhi District Consumer Commission
- When
- Car purchased on December 12, 2018; dispute surfaced in 2020; order passed on July 24
- Why
- Because the buyer was never told that company records reflected an earlier purchase date linked to a cancelled booking, which the commission held to be an unfair trade practice
Consumer and Commission's view
Dealer and manufacturer's view
Disclosure of sale history
Consumer and Commission's view
The buyer was never told that records showed a July 2018 purchase date, so selling the car as brand new without revealing this history was an unfair trade practice.
Dealer and manufacturer's view
The vehicle was genuinely new; the earlier billing to another customer was cancelled before delivery, and the earlier date remained only because the manufacturer's software field was non-editable.
Who bears responsibility
Consumer and Commission's view
Both parties shifted blame to each other, and Mercedes-Benz India submitted only a few pages of its 50-page dealership agreement, so it cannot escape joint accountability.
Dealer and manufacturer's view
Mercedes-Benz India sold the car to the dealer on a principal-to-principal basis and had no knowledge or control over the dealer's later transactions with customers.
Key facts
- Compensation
- Rs 10 lakh total (Rs 5 lakh each from T and T Motors and Mercedes-Benz India)
- Car price
- Rs 50.72 lakh
- Actual purchase date
- December 12, 2018
- Recorded purchase date
- July 25, 2018
- Standard warranty
- 3 years / unlimited mileage, valid until December 11, 2021
- Extended warranty
- Valid until December 11, 2023
- Forum
- South Delhi District Consumer Commission
- Order date
- July 24 (year not stated in article)
Quotes
South Delhi District Consumer Commission
Consumer protection regulatory body in South Delhi
“The commission said, “It is surprising to note that the complainant was never apprised of the fact that the date of purchase had been recorded as July 2018 in the records of the opposite parties and that the said entry was incapable of being altered at the time of sale by T and T Motors and Mercedes-Benz India both.””
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Haryana Man Wins Rs 41,000 Over Defective Car Infotainment
Delhi Woman Wins Compensation After Bra Overcharging Dispute
Kerala cosmetic store fined Rs 15,000 for selling expired product
Mumbai Commission Revives Nine-Year-Old Complaint Over ₹30 Chakali Receipt
Ola ordered to pay ₹1.30 lakh for deficient scooter service
Kia India Dealer Ordered Refund Over Recurring Sonet DPF Problem
Shenu Agarwal Elected SIAM President for 2026-27 Term
Why Indian Manufacturing Needs a Distinct Global Advantage
Luxury Cars Get Costlier as Certified Used Demand Surges
Mercedes-Benz Partners with Indian Padel Tour
