Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—Appellant is a dealer of motor vehicles. It was arraigned as respondent No. 3 in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 Shri S. Chandra Sekhar whereas its Director Shri R.K. Jain was arraigned as respondent No. 1 and its General Manager, Shri Ranganathan Aiyar, was arraigned as respondent No. 2.

2. On account of unfair trade practice inasmuch as that an old used car of the model of 2002 was sold by it to respondent No. 1 by representing it as a new car of model of 2004, appellant has been directed to refund the cost of the car with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase and also pay Rs. 1,000 as cost of the complaint in case its Director R.K. Jain finds it difficult to replace the old car with a new car of 2004 model.

3. We have perused the registration certificate of the car as well as the various documents and find from the record that the car was sold by the appellant to represent as model of 2004 but the insurance papers indicated the car of 2002 year model. It was found to be a used car as it suffered from serious mechanical problems and defects in the engine which could not be rectified inspite of several visits to the workshop of the appellant. There was also a wide patch on the dickey of the car. So much so the agent of the appellant did not provide registration certificate of the car for about five long months and the documents they provided subsequently showed a different registration number.

4. There cannot be any worse kind of unfair trade practice than this. The appellant had adopted unfair method rather deceptive practice for the purpose of selling of an old vehicle by representing it as a new vehicle and was, therefore, rightly directed to refund the amount received by it.

5. At the time of sale of the car in the year 2004 it was represented that the car was of 2004 model, had it been a case of bona fide mistake the appellant was not required to give rebate to the respondent by selling on discounted price. The impugned order does not need any interference resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

6. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, filed by the appellant be returned after completion of due formalities.

7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

8. Announced on 20th September 2005.

Appeal dismissed.

––