Consumer court orders Varun Motors to pay ₹1 lakh compensation to Brezza buyer
HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has directed Varun Motors and its branch manager to pay ₹1 lakh compensation to a car buyer for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice related to the sale of a vehicle.
The order was passed on February 23, 2025, in a complaint filed by Rajput Jayasree Garag, a resident of Gachibowli, Rangareddy district. The complainant had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Brezza ZXI petrol manual vehicle on December 26, 2024, for ₹13,29,300.
Dispute over manufacturing month of vehicle
The complainant alleged that she had clearly requested a vehicle manufactured in November 2024 at the time of booking. According to the complaint, the dealer assured her that a vehicle from that month would be delivered.
However, after receiving the pre-delivery inspection (PDI) report on December 30, 2024, she discovered that the vehicle supplied had been manufactured in June 2024. She claimed that the dealer had misrepresented the manufacturing month and delayed providing the PDI report and invoice.
The complainant also alleged that the vehicle had scratches on the bonnet and that she was pressured to take delivery. After repeated follow-ups and a police complaint on January 17, 2025, she approached the consumer commission seeking replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase amount along with damages.
Dealer responsible; manufacturer cleared
After examining the evidence, including the PDI report and WhatsApp conversations between the complainant and the dealership staff, the commission observed that the dealer had confirmed availability of a November-manufactured vehicle before the purchase.
However, the vehicle delivered was manufactured in June 2024. The commission noted that the dealer failed to disclose the actual manufacturing month at the time of delivery despite the buyer’s specific request.
The commission held that withholding the PDI report and failing to reveal the manufacturing date constituted deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice by the dealership.
At the same time, the commission ruled that Maruti Suzuki India and Maruti Suzuki Arena were not liable in the dispute as the sale transaction took place between the buyer and the authorised dealer. The manufacturer’s relationship with the dealer was on a principal-to-principal basis.
Compensation ordered; replacement plea rejected
The commission declined the buyer’s request for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the full purchase price, noting that no evidence of a manufacturing defect had been produced.
However, considering the misrepresentation regarding the manufacturing month and the inconvenience caused, the commission awarded ₹1,00,000 as lump-sum compensation.
Varun Motors and its branch manager have been directed to pay the amount within 45 days. If the order is not complied with, the amount will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until payment.
