car compensation brand new consumer rights

Sud’s Car Confusion: The Maruti Mix-Up

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh resolved a dispute involving a Maruti Suzuki dealership. Complainant filed a complaint against Autopace Network Private Limited, alleged a defective car was sold in pretext of brand new.

brand new
consumer rights


Parul Sud purchased a brand new Suzuki Ignis-Alpha from Autopace Network Private Limited for Rs. 6.47lakhs.

Upon delivery, Sud noticed rubbing marks on the bonnet, a missing first aid kit, and scratch marks on the keys.

Later, Sud discovered a repair memo dated March 12, 2020, inside the car, indicating prior repairs.

Despite complaints, the dealership assured Sud the vehicle was in pristine condition.

The dealership offered to replace the bonnet and first aid kit after Sud raised the issue.

However, Sud sent a legal notice to the dealership and Maruti Suzuki but received no resolution.

The dealership refuted Sud’s claims, stating the vehicle was in satisfactory condition upon delivery.

Maruti Suzuki argued that they sell vehicles to authorized dealers, not directly to customers.

The commission found Sud’s documents credible and dismissed the dealership’s claim of fake documents.

The dealership admitted that some vehicles might require minor repairs before sale but failed to justify undisclosed repairs.

Dealer’s Arguments

The dealership denied any denting or painting issues with the vehicle and claimed it was in satisfactory condition upon delivery.

Further they asserted that complainant inspected the car at the time of delivery.

They asserted that the car keys were not scratched, the bonnet didn’t have rubbing marks, and the first aid kit was provided.

The dealership argued that the complainant’s allegations were false and that they had not sold a repaired vehicle.

They suggested that the complainant’s documents were fake and fabricated to escape liability.

Maruti Suzuki’s Arguments:

Maruti Suzuki India Limited clarified that it sells vehicles to authorized dealers who then sell them to customers.

They argued that the complainant was not a direct customer of Maruti Suzuki and therefore not entitled to compensation.

Moreover, Maruti Suzuki emphasized that no consideration was paid directly to them by the complainant for the vehicle.

They claimed that since the vehicle was sold through an authorized dealer, they were not responsible for the transaction or any alleged defects.


The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh ruled in favor of Parul Sud, directing Autopace Network Private Limited to either replace the faulty car with a new one or refund her the full purchase amount of Rs 6,47,000 with interest.

The commission found the dealership’s assurances of a brand new vehicle to be misleading, considering the existence of repair records. Despite the dealership’s claims of satisfactory condition and denial of any repairs, the commission deemed Sud’s evidence credible.

Rejecting the dealership’s allegation of fabricated documents, the commission concluded that Sud had been sold a repaired vehicle without disclosure.

As a result, the dealership was found guilty of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Sud’s complaint against Maruti Suzuki was dismissed as they were not directly involved in the transaction.

The commission’s decision aimed to rectify the injustice faced by Sud and ensure fair consumer rights protection.

Protect your consumer rights and contact us at:

[email protected]

For further information visit us at:

Payal Sharma

Payal Sharma

Articles: 9

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *