Baramulla Consumer Commission: Himalayan Motors Directed To Replace Or Refund Defective Supro Profit Truck; ₹70,000 Compensation Awarded To Buyer
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member), held Himalayan Motors (Seller) liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for delivering a defective Supro Profit Truck Maxi VX WD vehicle to the complainant. The Commission directed the seller to either replace the defective vehicle with a new one of the same brand and specifications or refund the entire purchase amount along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of payment until realization. The seller was also directed to pay ₹50,000/- as compensation and ₹20,000/- towards litigation costs.
Background
The complainant, Mohammad Altaf Pujoo, a resident of Pattan, District Baramulla, purchased a Supro Profit Truck Maxi VX WD from Himalayan Motors, Sangrama (OP No.1) after paying an advance of ₹5,000/-. He availed a loan of ₹7,54,000/- from J&K Bank (OP No.2), which was directly credited to the seller’s account, and contributed an additional ₹55,000/- personally. The vehicle was delivered in February 2024. Soon after delivery, the vehicle began developing mechanical defects, frequently breaking down and causing significant financial and emotional distress to the complainant. On one occasion, while traveling near Kargil, the vehicle stopped functioning completely, and the complainant had to transport it back to the dealer’s workshop at his own expense of ₹25,000/-.
Despite repeated complaints, Himalayan Motors allegedly offered only verbal assurances and performed inadequate repairs. The complainant also alleged that the seller cut the silencer of the vehicle without his consent, further damaging it. The complainant later discovered that several repair bills issued by the dealer were in the name of another person (Farooq Ahmad), indicating that the vehicle may not have been brand new at the time of sale. The vehicle has remained in the seller’s workshop since then, while the complainant continues to pay monthly loan installments of ₹12,000/- to J&K Bank.
Complainant’s Allegations
The complainant accused the dealer of selling a defective and possibly pre-owned vehicle, engaging in unfair trade practices, and failing to provide after-sales service. He argued that the actions of the seller had caused him severe financial hardship and mental agony, as the vehicle was meant for earning his livelihood. He sought a replacement vehicle or refund, along with interest, compensation of ₹50,000/-, and ₹20,000/- towards litigation costs.
Proceedings Before the Commission
Both Himalayan Motors and J&K Bank filed written replies after receiving notice but failed to appear for subsequent hearings. Consequently, the case proceeded ex parte against both parties. The complainant filed his own evidence affidavit along with statements from five supporting witnesses — all confirming that the vehicle was defective, repeatedly broke down, and that the seller failed to carry out meaningful repairs. The witnesses also confirmed that the vehicle was delivered in a faulty condition, and that several repair invoices bore the name of another customer, substantiating the claim that a used vehicle was sold to the complainant as new.
Findings of the Commission
After examining the evidence, the Commission observed that the complainant had indeed purchased the vehicle from Himalayan Motors for ₹7.54 lakh and that it had developed serious mechanical problems within a short time of delivery. The Commission found that the seller failed to rectify the defects despite several repair attempts and had even tampered with the vehicle’s silencer without the complainant’s consent. The Commission remarked that such conduct clearly amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
It further observed that repair bills in another person’s name substantiated the complainant’s claim that the vehicle was not new at the time of sale, noting that the seller’s failure to respond or contest the complaint further strengthened the complainant’s case. The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajiv Shukla v. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., where the Court held that selling a defective vehicle instead of a new one amounts to unfair trade practice and dishonest conduct under consumer law.
Holding Himalayan Motors responsible for deficiency in service, the Commission issued the following directions:
The seller shall replace the defective vehicle with a new one of the same brand, model, and specifications; or refund the entire consideration amount received from the complainant along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of payment until realization.
The seller shall pay ₹50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, and deficiency in service.
The seller shall further pay ₹20,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.
The Commission directed compliance within four weeks of receiving the order.
Cause Title: Mohammed Altaf Puju v. Himalayan Motors & J&K Bank
Case No: Consumer Complaint No. 39/2025
Coram: Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President), Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member)
