The South Delhi District Consumer Commission held T and T Motors and Mercedes-Benz India guilty of unfair trade practice for allegedly selling a new Mercedes-Benz car without disclosing that its system reflected an earlier purchase date linked to a cancelled booking.A bench of president Monika Agrawal and members Rajender Dhar and Ritu Garodia directed each to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation, while ordering Mercedes-Benz India to correct the purchase date in its software.“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. The warranty was extended, though the date of the purchase was reflected in the opposite parties’ software as July 2018,” the commission said on July 24.The order noted that the complainant has been requesting to edit the date of purchase from the opposite parties. It continued that no proper reason has been provided by either of the opposite parties in their reply before this commission. “As a matter of fact, both opposite parties are engaged in shifting the blame to one another,” it said.Allegation of concealing Mercedes sale historyThe complainant purchased a new Mercedes-Benz car from a dealer of Mercedes-Benz India Pvt Ltd for Rs 50.72 lakh with an extended warranty on December 12, 2018. The car was allotted temporary registration.Also Read | Used car dealer ‘conceals’ SUV’s accident history, Kerala buyer wins Rs 2.56 lakhIt was stated that the car dealer 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 controversy surfaced in 2020 when the complainant sent the car to the authorised service centre for routine servicing. During the service process, the complainant noticed that the service invoice mentioned the vehicle’s first registration date as July 25, 2018, nearly five months before the actual purchase. On obtaining the Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) details, the complainant found that the internal records also reflected the purchase date as July 25, 2018.Story continues below this adThe complainant alleged that the car sold to the complainant was earlier sold to another person and sought a refund of the cost of the vehicle, the amount paid to the dealer to be adjusted against the new car, and compensation.Dealer cited software limitationThe dealer contended that the vehicle sold to the complainant was a brand-new vehicle and not a demo or used vehicle. According to the dealer, the car had earlier been billed to another customer in July 2018, but that transaction was cancelled before delivery. Since the manufacturer’s software retained the date of the first billing as a non-editable field, the earlier date continued to appear in the records.The dealer further submitted that it had no authority to modify the manufacturer’s software. It asserted that the complainant had been given the full standard warranty from 12 December 2018 to 11 December 2021 and that the extended warranty had also been corrected to remain valid until 11 December 2023. It denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and contended that the complainant had suffered no loss because the warranty benefits remained unaffected.No control over dealer: MercedesMercedes-Benz India argued that the vehicle had been sold by the manufacturer to the dealer on a principal-to-principal basis in June 2018, after which the manufacturer had no knowledge or control over the dealer’s subsequent transactions with customers. Therefore, any alleged lapse on the dealer’s part could not be attributed to the manufacturer.Story continues below this adIt also emphasised that the complainant had not alleged any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It maintained that the dispute, if any, related to the dealer’s sale of the vehicle and not to any defect in manufacture or quality, and therefore sought dismissal of the complaint.Agreement produced is incomplete: OrderThe commission rejected the preliminary objections raised by the opposite parties regarding territorial jurisdiction. It held that since T and T Motors carried on business from its office in New Delhi, which fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission, the complaint was maintainable.Examining the documentary evidence, the commission noted that the dealer’s tax invoice clearly established that the Mercedes-Benz was sold to the complainant on December 12, 2018, for Rs 50.72 lakh. It also found that the manufacturer had separately collected registration charges and other statutory charges on the same date. The temporary registration certificate issued by the transport department also supported the complainant’s claim regarding the actual date of purchase.Also Read | Used car dealer ‘conceals’ SUV’s accident history, Kerala buyer wins Rs 2.56 lakhThe commission further observed that Mercedes-Benz India had produced only an incomplete copy of its dealership agreement with T and T Motors. Since only a few pages of a 50-page agreement were placed on record, the Commission held that it could not conclusively determine the exact contractual relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer or accept the manufacturer’s claim that it bore no responsibility on a principal-to-principal basis.Story continues below this adTakeawayThis judgment reinforces that automobile manufacturers and dealers must fully disclose a vehicle’s transaction history and maintain accurate records. It makes clear that software errors, incomplete documentation, or shifting blame cannot excuse unfair trade practices. Consumers are entitled to transparency, and both manufacturers and dealers may be held jointly accountable for misleading conduct.Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi helpline: 011-23379146) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Don’t miss out on these stories:https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/buyer-wins-rs-12-30-lakh-payout-dealer-suv-ownership-10810109/https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/car-mg-windsor-stalls-owner-wins-over-rs-19-50-lakh-refund-10805176/https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/vision-in-one-eye-after-airbags-fail-crash-rs-6-15-lakh-payout-10801734/