Kasaragod: When Maruti Suzuki launched the Vitara Brezza in March 2016, it disrupted India’s compact SUV market. For Hamza Kunnil Moidu of Haddad near Bekal, however, the car would end up disrupting nearly a decade of his life.

But Hamza chose a patient legal fight, and it has paid off. Maruti Suzuki dealer Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd, which took ₹11.20 lakh from him but never delivered the car, has been directed to pay nearly ₹29 lakh by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The amount includes ₹3 lakh as compensation, ₹15,000 towards legal expenses, and 14% annual interest calculated from December 14, 2016, the day Hamza transferred the full payment to the dealer.

“Yesterday, the dealer handed me a cheque of nearly ₹25 lakh. After depositing it, I flew back,” said Hamza on Wednesday, over the phone from Sharjah, where he runs a supermarket business. “The next hearing before the district commission is on March 10. I expect them to pay the remaining ₹4 lakh by then,” he said.

Hamza said he chose to pursue the case for two reasons. First, the dealer had offered a paltry 2% interest on the money he gave till the car was delivered. Second, a Brezza booked by his cousin through the same dealer in Kanhangad was delivered only after he paid three EMIs on the car loan. “That’s when I began to suspect there was a pattern behind the delay,” he said.

When the Vitara Brezza was launched in March 2016, it carried a waiting period. Hamza, who already owned other cars, did not mind waiting.
On September 24, 2016, executives from Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd visited his house and booked the car. They promised delivery within 21 days. “I wanted to take it for a spin when I was home. When they did not deliver it in 21 days, I returned to Sharjah disappointed,” he said.

In December, nearly two months later, the dealer informed him that the vehicle was ready and asked him to make the payment. “I flew home the next day to arrange the money,” he said.

He secured a ₹10 lakh loan from Canara Bank’s Palakkunnu branch. “I added the remaining amount from my savings and transferred the full payment to the dealer on December 14,” he said. But the car was still not delivered.

“They kept engaging me by sending photos of the car and giving delivery dates over WhatsApp,” he said. “All that later became evidence before the consumer commission.” At one point, the showroom told him the car had reached Kozhikode and that interior work was underway. It would reach Kanhangad by 5 pm, he was informed.

“It sounded strange. No dealer drives a brand-new car 200 km before delivery,” Hamza said. The next morning, when he called again, he was told the car had not arrived. Three days later, he went to the showroom and heard a different version: the vehicle had allegedly met with an accident while being transported, and the temporary registration had been cancelled.

“That’s when I realised I was being taken for a ride,” he said. “They were treating me shabbily.” Hamza demanded a refund along with compensation for the time he lost from work in Sharjah and the airfare he spent flying home at the dealer’s insistence. “But they offered me just 2% interest on my money,” he said.

Left with no option, he approached the Kasaragod District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He engaged Adv C Shukkur as his counsel. Four years after he filed the case, the District Consumer Redressal Commission ruled that the dealer should give Hamza compensation of ₹3 lakh and return the payment at an interest rate of 14%, plus ₹5,000 legal expenses.

Instead of complying with the district commission’s order, the dealer moved to the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. “I told them they could go anywhere, but I would not give up,” Hamza said. “I told them I didn’t need the money. I wanted to hold them accountable.”

Janardhana Kamath H, the then manager of Canara Bank’s Palakkunnu branch, said Hamza continued to pay his EMIs regularly despite not receiving the car.  “He never missed a single EMI,” Kamath told Onmanorama. “But legally, it was a difficult situation for the bank because the collateral was missing. I wrote to the dealer five times, asking them either to deliver the vehicle or return the money. There was no response.”

Kamath admitted that the bank could have impleaded itself as a party in the case. “Legally, we should have joined the proceedings. But since the EMIs were coming regularly, we did not,” he said. He, however, testified before the district commission against the dealer.

Hamza said he could have closed the loan but chose not to. “I kept it running for the benefit of the case,” he said. After another five years of litigation, the State Commission upheld the district commission’s order and directed the dealer to pay an additional ₹10,000 towards legal expenses.

Hamza said he had moved on from Brezza the day they cooked up the accident story. “I went and bought a Fortuner instead.”