Automobile dealer Sterling Services Limited has been ordered to pay almost $400,000 in compensation to a customer to whom it sold a defective Mercedes Benz to in 2013.
Danley Maharaj received the refund on the entire purchase price of the C-Class Mercedes Benz, after High Court Judge Frank Seepersad ruled that the company breached its contract by failing to properly address the defects experienced after purchase in August 2013.
According to the evidence in the lawsuit, Maharaj was forced to return the vehicle eight times during the first six months due to a persistent “knocking noise” emanating from the engine. Maharaj sued the company after they refused his request for a replacement.
The company counter-sued Maharaj as they claimed that the damage was caused by his extensive use. It also sought to recover $39,000 in repairs it claimed it was forced to do on two courtesy cars which were provided to Maharaj while his vehicle was being repaired.
In his written judgment delivered in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, Seepersad ruled that Maharaj had a legitimate expectation that he would receive a vehicle in perfect working order when he purchased it from the dealership.
Seepersad said, “The purchaser of a new vehicle can reasonably expect that such a new vehicle can be driven safely with an appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and with reliability and its use can reasonably be accompanied with the pride that is associated with the vehicle’s external and internal appearance. With a luxury brand such as Mercedes, the expectations would be more heightened.
“No reasonable person who purchased a brand new C-Class Benz could have expected to be faced with such problems and it’s rather unfortunate that the pleasure that should be derived from owning such a prestigious vehicle was not experienced by the claimant,” he added.
Seepersad also described the company’s treatment of Maharaj’s complaints as unfortunate.
“It may very well be that because it is the sole agent for this type of luxury vehicle that the absence of competition results in a circumstance where the buyer’s hand is in the mouth of the proverbial lion and no meaningful attempt is therefore made to deal with the legitimate concerns of customers,” Seepersad said.
He also suggested that the case should serve as an example to the Government on why it should amend laws to provide additional support to consumers and to consumers who fail to stand up for their rights.
“For too long consumers have been exploited in this society but they have also become complacent and have forgotten that the power lies with them since they ultimately determine whether or not they will part with their money. Given the current economic climate, that decision must be exercised with caution, and unscrupulous decisions by merchants such as unjustified price increases, the unwillingness to treat with legitimate consumer queries, or the absence of after purchase service should be rejected,” Seepersad said.