Recently, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed automobile manufacturer Porsche, to pay the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for misrepresenting its year of manufacture.

The division bench of Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Dr Inderjit Singh said that “The act of OP-2 ( Porsche Center, Gurgaon, India) in selling car of the 2013 year of manufacture as the 2014 year of manufacture amounts to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice, making him liable to compensate the complainant for the same.”

Case Brief

In the said matter, the division bench was hearing a complaint by Praveen Kumar Mittal, against Porsche India and Porsche Center, Gurgaon, alleging that they sold the car to him for Rs.80 lakh after misrepresenting the manufacturing year of the car.

Kumar, requested the bench to direct the parties to furnish either a new car or a refund of Rs. 80 lakh in addition to other expenses incurred in purchasing the subject car, along with Rs. 1 crore in damages for mental agony due to the Company's misrepresentation of a false manufacturing year.

The complainant contended that during the finalization of the model of the car, he was told by the agents of the Company that the manufacture year of the car is 2014. 

According to the Complainant, in 2016 when he decided to sell the car it was discovered that the manufacturing year of the car is 2013 and not 2014. The complainant further contended that the car was purchased in the month of February 2014.

On the other hand, Porsche submitted that their officials had informed that the car is of 2013 manufacture year, to which the complainant agreed and thereafter purchased the same for Rs.80 Lakh. The Porsche, Gurgaon also alleged that they had asked the complainant to get the car registered by them, but the complainant told the officials that he has some contacts in RTO and he will get the car registered with manufacturing year 2014 by himself.

The Commission noted that the documents presented by the parties referred to different years of manufacturing and distinct authorized signatories, suggesting that one of the sets was fabricated.

“Considering that complainant has been using the car in question since purchase, his prayer for providing a new car of same make or refund of Rs.80.00 lakhs plus other costs cannot be granted. However, he is entitled to compensation on account of deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2.” said the bench.

Case Title: Praveen Kumar Mittal v. Porsche India Ltd & Ors.