NEW DELHI: The Puducherry State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Mahindra & Mahindra, along with its dealer, responsible for failing to deliver a car that a man booked and paid for in full back in 2013.In its order on June 24, the commission directed Mahindra to refund the full amount and pay compensation, while holding the dealer partly responsible for the delay.What was the issueThe complainant, C Unnikrishnan booked a Mahindra XUV500 W6 with dealer Rajarajan & Sons in October 2013, paying an advance of Rs 40,000.His bank paid the remaining Rs 8,96,200 directly to the dealer on 28 October 2013. The dealer promised delivery within a week, citing a stock shortage, but the car never arrived, according to the court order.In 2015, Unnikrishnan approached the district consumer commission. The commission blamed the dealer and ordered a refund of Rs 8,71,200 with 6 per cent interest, Rs 50,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 in litigation costs, while letting Mahindra off since there was no direct agreement between the company and the buyer.Aggrieved by this judgement, Unnikrishnan approached the state commission, seeking the full Rs 9,36,200 he’d paid, 24 per cent interest, and Rs 2 lakh compensation, arguing the earlier order gave no reasoning and ignored the roughly Rs 2 lakh he’d spent fighting a separate case his bank had filed against him over the unpaid loan.The dealer argued that the complainant wasn’t even a consumer since the car was for his business, and that Mahindra alone was at fault since the dealer had simply passed on the payment with no control over the money or delivery.However, the counsel for the company, argued that the man hadn’t shown any deficiency of service or manufacturing defect on the company’s part. He said the company, being the manufacturer, didn’t deal directly with end customers.What did the commission sayThe bench comprising S Sundaravadivelu (presiding member) and S Oumasanguery (member) disagreed with the dealer’s argument and noted that the real test was whether the intent was to earn profit. Since the car was never delivered, it couldn’t have been used to earn money — so the complainant qualified as a consumer.“Usually when people decide to purchase a car they make the choice primarily considering the manufacturer, model, variants etc. They know very well who the manufacturer is and also that the dealer acts only as a bridge between the buyer and manufacturer,” the commission said.“The dealer acts as the face of the manufacturer as people can not purchase the car directly from the manufacturer,” it further added.The bank manager confirmed the dealer “can not get back any amount” from the account. The loan agreement said funds go “directly to the Manufacturer for and on behalf of the Borrower.” An email from the dealer to Mahindra, along with a purchase order dated 16 June 2014, showed Mahindra knew the car was needed, yet still didn’t send it.The commission, citing a Supreme Court order, said that an agent can’t be blamed for a company’s actions once that company is clearly named. Based on this, it held Mahindra “responsible for non-delivery of the vehicle.” But the dealer wasn’t let off either as it had placed the purchase order almost eight months late.The commission directed Mahindra to refund Rs 8,71,200 with 12 percent yearly interest from 2 April 2015 until the amount is fully paid, along with Rs 1,50,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards legal costs. The dealer was ordered to pay a separate Rs 50,000 as compensation. All these payments, apart from the refund and its interest, must be made within 30 days, failing which an additional 8% interest will apply.