Ludhiana: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised a second-hand car dealership located near Phullanwal Chowk for deficiency in service after it refused to refund a Rs 50,000 advance for a defective vehicle. In a decisive ruling, the commission directed the firm to return the full booking amount to the complainant.According to the complaint, Kamaljit had approached the dealership to purchase a used vehicle and was shown several models. Relying on the firm’s assurances that the cars were free of any patent or latent defects, he selected a Maruti Baleno priced at Rs 5,56,500. He proceeded to pay an advance of Rs 50,000, which included digital payments of Rs 5,000 and Rs 10,000 via UPI on May 18 and May 28, 2025, respectively, with the remaining balance settled in cash by May 30. Although the dealers promised delivery at the complainant’s convenience, the transaction took a sharp turn when technical expertise was brought into the picture.On June 3, 2025, Kamaljit, who admitted to having limited mechanical knowledge, brought a trusted mechanic, Harnoor Singh, to inspect the vehicle. The inspection revealed that the Baleno suffered from significant mechanical and bodyline deformities. Upon discovering the flaws, the complainant not only rejected the Baleno but found other cars in the dealership’s inventory to be similarly defective. However, when he requested a refund of his advance, the dealership allegedly refused to comply and even resorted to threatening him, causing significant mental tension and financial distress.Ex parte proceedings and verdictDespite being served a formal notice, no representative from the dealership appeared before the commission to contest the claims, leading the court to proceed against them ex parte. After reviewing the receipts and evidence provided, the commission observed that the firm had unjustly retained the money without any valid justification. Such conduct was deemed a clear case of unfair trade practice and a failure to provide the promised standard of service.The commission concluded that the opposite parties were liable for the entire Rs 50,000 refund alongside the Rs 5,000 composite compensation. The ruling serves as a stern reminder to the used-car industry regarding the transparency of mechanical disclosures and the legal obligation to honour refund requests when products fail to meet the “defect-free” guarantees made at the time of booking.
