A district consumer commission directed automobile manufacturer Volkswagen and its dealership to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation for selling a car with a defective dashboard and horn pad. Additionally, it underscored that two different prices were quoted on two different documents signed by the same staff.
The commission was dealing with a compliant filed by Veccha Praveen, a software engineer. The opposite parties (OP) were Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd., Deccan Mody (head office) and Deccan Mody (showroom).
The complainant alleged that he booked a Volkswagen SUV. A price of ₹20.38 lakh, reduced from the original price of ₹23.05 lakh, was quoted if it was booked the same day. On August 13, 2022, Mr. Veccha Praveen, while en route to take possession of the vehicle, received a call informing him that the price was revised to ₹22.45 lakh.
The complainant regarded it as a breach of trust. At the time of delivery, he noticed scratches on the dashboard and horn pad. The showroom agreed to get these replaced during the vehicle’s first service.
For their part, Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. denied the allegations and maintained that in case of deficiency in service, the other opposite parties were liable. The other two OPs replaced the dashboard and horn pad.
On its part, Deccan Mody contended that the vehicle price was never fixed at ₹20.38 lakh. The price increase was informed well in advance, along with the reasons. Despite there having been no scratch on the dashboard and horn pad, they agreed to get them replaced.
After reviewing the evidence, the commission concluded that scratches were evident on the dashboard and horn pad, as new parts were ordered. The OPs claimed the price increase was communicated in advance but provided no substantiation. No evidence was presented for the price hike. A sales contract listed the price as ₹20.38 lakh whereas a quotation-cum-proforma invoice, signed by the same consultant, showed a net payable amount of ₹23,05,341. The price was increased within 10 days.
Considering this as deficiency in service, the commission directed that the compensation be paid and ordered replacement of the defective parts with new ones. Costs of ₹20,000 were also imposed.
