False Claim Backfires: Bangalore Consumer Commission Fines Man ₹40,000 for Concealing Sale and Insurance of Fire-Damaged Hyundai
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban, comprising Smt. K. Anita Shivakumar (President I/C) and Smt. Suma Anil Kumar (Member), dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Hyundai Motors India Ltd. and two others, imposing a cost of ₹40,000 on the complainant for filing the claim in bad faith and suppressing material facts. The Commission found that the complainant had no subsisting rights over the damaged vehicle as it had already been sold, and the insurance claim had been settled.
The complaint was filed by Sri. Mohan Hegde, seeking directions to either replace the fire-damaged Hyundai vehicle with a new one or to repair the vehicle free of cost under the extended warranty scheme. The complainant also sought ₹5,00,000 as compensation for alleged mental agony, inconvenience, and financial loss, along with litigation expenses. The grievance arose from an incident on 25.10.2024, when the complainant experienced brake failure while driving the car, following which the vehicle caught fire. The damaged vehicle was towed to Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd. for assessment, which estimated the repair cost at ₹6.7 lakhs.
According to the complaint, the complainant had purchased the vehicle from KUN Hyundai, Chennai, on 20.05.2019, and later availed an extended warranty from Hyundai Motors India Ltd. on 11.04.2024 by paying ₹14,866. It was further stated that an insurance agency, M/s Zurich Kotak, concluded that the incident occurred due to a mechanical failure and fell within the scope of the extended warranty.
However, during admission stage, the Commission scrutinized the documents submitted and noted two significant facts that had not been disclosed in the complaint. Firstly, the complainant had already received ₹3,00,000 from the insurance company towards compensation for the fire accident. Secondly, the complainant had sold the damaged vehicle to a third party—Trigent Corporate—on 06.01.2025 for ₹88,000. A sale agreement evidencing the transaction was part of the record.
The Commission held that once a movable property is sold, all rights over the property cease to remain with the seller. It was noted that, despite being fully aware of having no ownership or possession over the car, the complainant and his advocate proceeded to file the complaint seeking replacement or repair of the same vehicle. The bench observed that "complainant did not appear with clean hands and made claim against the OPs for unjust enrichment."
In its reasoning, the Commission remarked that even if the complainant was a layperson, the advocate was expected to provide proper legal guidance. The fact that material information such as receipt of insurance payment and sale of the vehicle was intentionally suppressed from the complaint amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law. The Commission stated that “such being the case, complainant filed this complaint with mala fide intention and going to waste the precious time of the court.”
As the Commission found no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and determined that the complaint was not admissible, it dismissed the matter with costs. The complainant was directed to pay ₹40,000 to the Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum until realization.
Appearance
For Complainant: Adv. Nishanth. S. K
Cause Title: Mohan Hegde V. Hyundai Motors India Limited
Case No: Complaint No. 125/2025
Coram: Suma Anil Kumar [Member], K.Anita Shivakumar [President I/C]
