In a recent case, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Delhi cleared Hyundai Motors Limited of responsibility for a dealership’s failure to deliver a Hyundai Santro car, despite the customer having paid in full. The commission ruled that Hyundai, as the manufacturer, could not be held accountable for the misconduct of an independent dealer, Suhrit Hyundai, which closed down after accepting ₹3.32 lakh from the buyer.
The case revolved around a 2008 promotional offer where Hyundai advertised discounted prices for Santro cars. Attracted by the deal, the customer booked a vehicle through Suhrit Hyundai, a dealership in Mayapuri, Delhi. After paying in two installments, the customer was assured delivery by January 31, 2009. When that date passed, and the car still wasn’t delivered, the customer found that the dealership had abruptly shut down.
With no response from the dealership, the customer approached Hyundai Motors for a resolution, but his complaints were left unresolved. Turning to the District Consumer Commission, the customer secured a ruling against Suhrit Hyundai, which was ordered to refund the amount with interest. However, Hyundai Motors was not held liable due to a lack of direct contractual obligation between the customer and the manufacturer.
Challenging the decision, the customer took the matter to the State Commission, arguing that Hyundai should bear the responsibility for its dealer’s misconduct. The commission, however, upheld the previous ruling, reiterating that Hyundai Motors and the dealer had a principal-to-principal relationship, not a principal-agent one. Without a formal manufacturer-dealer agreement, Hyundai could not be held accountable for the actions of the defunct dealership.
The ruling underscored the separation of responsibilities between car manufacturers and their independent dealers, ultimately leaving Hyundai Motors free from liability in this case.
