A Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Mercedes-Benz India and its dealer, T&T Motors, guilty of unfair trade practice for allegedly failing to disclose the correct history of a sedan. Both parties were, therefore, directed to pay Rs 5 lakh each to the buyer while the vehicle’s purchase record was ordered to be updated.President Monika Aggarwal Srivastava and members Rajender Dhar and Ritu Garodia observed that the complainant was never told that the vehicle’s purchase date had been recorded as July 2018 in the opposite parties’ records and that the entry was incapable of being altered at the time of sale by the dealer and manufacturer.“We find OP-1(T & T Motors Pvt. Ltd.) guilty of unfair trade practice by not informing the complainant about the date of purchase reflected in the software of OP-2 (Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd) manufacturer and issuing a false invoice in July 2018 and direct OP-1 to pay Rs 5,00,000. Hence, we find OP-2 guilty of unfair trade practice for not editing the date of purchase in its own software and not informing the complainant about the date of purchase and direct OP-2 to pay Rs 5,00,000,” the July 24 order said. New car, old purchase dateOn December 12, 2018, the complainant purchased a new Mercedes-Benz from T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd, a dealer of Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., for Rs 50.72 lakh. He also purchased an extended warranty on December 29, 2018, and the car was allotted temporary registration.It is stated that T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd via its letter dated January 30, 2019, confirmed that a brand new Mercedes Benz had been sold to the complainant under a standard warranty of three years and unlimited mileage from the date of invoice up to December 11, 2021. The complainant sent the car for servicing to T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd in 2020. During servicing, the invoice showed that the car was first registered on July 25, 2018. He also obtained pre-delivery inspection details, which showed the purchase date as July 25, 2018, and raised the issue with T&T through emails.T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd replied to the mail, informing that the vehicle had been earlier billed to another customer on June 25, 2018, but it was cancelled. The complainant alleged that the car sold to him was earlier sold to another person and sought refund of the vehicle’s cost, adjustment of the amount paid towards a new vehicle, and compensation.Story continues below this adT&T Motors Pvt. Ltd contentionsT&T Motors Pvt. Ltd argued that the complainant was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, because the vehicle was purchased by a commercial organisation.It stated that the Mercedes-Benz car sold to the complainant was temporarily registered on December 13, 2018, and clarified that the car was earlier booked for another customer in July 2018, but the sale was cancelled. The car was later sold to the complainant in December 2018.It further submitted that it was only a dealer and could not modify software records; only the manufacturer could make such changes. It added that after the parties corresponded regarding the issue, a certificate dated January 30, 2020, confirmed the applicability of the extended warranty from December 11, 2021 to December 11, 2023, and said that there was no unfair trade practice on its part.Mercedes-Benz contentionsMercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. argued that the vehicle was purchased by a commercial organisation and the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It further stated that the commission did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint Story continues below this adThe manufacturer stated that it had sold the car to the dealer on June 29, 2018, on a principal-to-principal basis and had no role or knowledge of the transactions of the dealer with any of the customers, including the complainant.The complainant filed a rejoinder denying that the car was being used for commercial purposes, stating that it was registered as a private vehicle, and was used by a partner for personal purposes.‘Compensation granted’The commission observed that although the warranty was extended, Mercedes-Benz India’s software reflected the purchase date as July, 2018. It noted that the complainant had been requesting to edit the date of purchase from the dealer and the manufacturer, but no proper reason had been provided by either of them in their reply before this commission.The commission held both the parties liable for deficiency in service and ordered them to pay Rs 5 lakh each and directed Mercedes-Benz India to make necessary changes in the software regarding the purchase date. It directed the parties to comply with the order within 60 days from the pronouncement of the order.Story continues below this adConsumer takeawayIt highlights the responsibility of the dealers and manufacturers to inform the complainant about the history of the vehicle being sold and make changes in its software before issuing an invoice. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi: 1800-11-4000) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.