Bought a Used Car With Hidden Defects? Getting a Refund

The complainant purchased a pre-owned sedan from CARS24 marketed as having passed a comprehensive '140-point quality check' with guaranteed zero accidental and flood history. Within 3 weeks of delivery, an authorized brand workshop uncovered critical chassis floor rust, corroded electrical wiring under carpets, and silt deposits inside door cavities indicating prior flood submersion. CARS24 rejected the return request, arguing that the complainant accepted delivery and that the 7-day return period had lapsed.

The District Consumer Forum held that concealing latent structural defects and flood damage while charging a premium for certified quality amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Contractual return windows do not extinguish statutory rights where latent defects are deliberately suppressed. The forum directed CARS24 to take back the car and refund the entire purchase consideration of ₹4,85,000 along with 9% annual interest, ₹35,000 compensation for mental harassment, and ₹10,000 litigation expenses.

The buyer acquired a certified SUV with an advertised 1-year comprehensive powertrain warranty and a 5-day money-back guarantee. On the tenth day after delivery, the vehicle suffered complete engine seizure due to pre-existing oil sludge and oil pump failure. Spinny and its warranty administrator repudiated coverage alleging 'driver negligence' and refusing repurchase on the grounds that the 5-day return window had expired.

The District Commission observed that engine seizure occurring within ten days of delivery conclusively proves that the latent defect existed prior to the sale. Platforms providing warranty certificates cannot arbitrarily invoke vague exclusion clauses to evade liability. The commission ordered the platform to refund the complete purchase sum of ₹6,20,000, cancel the associated vehicle finance arrangement, and pay ₹50,000 damages for severe mental agony and inconvenience.

The complainant bought a pre-owned hatchback showing 48,000 km on the odometer. When the car was taken to an authorized brand dealership for regular servicing, the computerized OEM server records revealed that the vehicle had already clocked 1,12,000 km fourteen months earlier during a warranty repair. The dealer had digitally dialed back the odometer to deceive prospective buyers into paying inflated market pricing.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed that altering an odometer reading is not merely a breach of contract but active consumer fraud and criminal deception under Section 318 BNS (formerly IPC 420). The commission affirmed an order directing the dealer to take back the car, refund the full purchase price of ₹5,50,000 with 12% interest, and awarded ₹1,00,000 in punitive damages to deter deceptive commercial practices in the used-vehicle sector.

The purchaser paid the full vehicle price plus ₹8,500 RC transfer fees to a certified pre-owned outlet. Ten months after delivery, the Registration Certificate remained in the original owner's name. A Parivahan check disclosed that the vehicle had an undischarged bank loan hypothecation (Form 35 unissued) and ₹18,000 in accumulated unpaid traffic challans incurred before the sale.

The District Commission held that under Central Motor Vehicles Rules and Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, a seller must deliver an unencumbered title. Selling a vehicle with outstanding hypothecation and delayed RC transfer exposes the purchaser to impoundment risks and police scrutiny. The forum directed the dealer to clear all pending challans, obtain the bank NOC, and deliver the transferred RC within 30 days, failing which the dealer was ordered to refund the entire vehicle cost plus ₹30,000 compensation.