The National Consumer Tribunal has ordered Rifle Range Car Sales to refund a Mpumalanga man more than R207 000 after finding that the dealership sold him a defective Mahindra SUV.

According to The Mercury, the ruling follows an application by Jacobus Holl, who represented himself with assistance from his wife. Holl bought the used Mahindra XUV 500 in May 2023 for just over R207 000.

Prior to purchase, the dealership told him the vehicle’s clutch required repair but assured him it was in good condition and would not be financed ‘if it were a disaster.’

Holl and his wife test-drove the car and noted cosmetic issues and clutch problems, which they were told would be repaired before delivery. Later, the dealership confirmed the clutch had been fixed and that the vehicle was free of defects.

However, on his drive back from Johannesburg to Nelspruit after collecting the car, Holl noticed multiple problems, including malfunctioning dashboard gauges, warning lights, a defective cruise control system, wheel alignment issues and faults with door locks and keys.

Acting on the dealership’s instruction, Holl took the vehicle to Volvo Auto Baltic in Nelspruit for inspection.

The workshop identified serious mechanical and electrical issues, including a leaking transfer case, a non-functioning all-wheel drive system, dirty coolant with no antifreeze, vibration caused by excessive play in the centre prop shaft bearing, oil leaks, a faulty cruise control system and a defective computer box.

The Motor Industry Ombudsman of SA recommended the dealership collect the vehicle at its own risk and cost and resolve all outstanding issues free of charge. This was ignored.

Holl approached the National Consumer Commission (NCC), which issued a notice of non-referral in December 2024, stating the six month warranty period had expired.   Holl then applied directly to the NCC.

According to The Mercury, Rifle Range Car Sales argued Holl had signed a waiver acknowledging wear and tear associated with a used vehicle and had accepted the risk of future mechanical problems.

The dealership blamed Holl for not taking out mechanical breakdown insurance and maintained the vehicle had been sold ‘voetstoots’.

However, the tribunal rejected this argument noting suppliers cannot contract out of the implied warranty provided for under section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). 

It held that clauses in the purchase agreement purporting to exempt the dealership from liability were in direct conflict with the Act.

The tribunal found some of Holl’s complaints were minor but it ruled that several defects were material. These included the leaking transfer case, the defective computer box and the non-functioning all-wheel drive system – features that rendered the vehicle unsuitable for its intended purpose.

‘The first respondent attended to some but not all the repairs and therefore contravened sections 56(2) and 56(3) of the CPA,’ the tribunal ruled, declaring the dealership’s conduct prohibited.

It ordered Rifle Range Car Sales to refund the full purchase price of R207 059.43 within five days and to collect the vehicle from Holl at its own cost and risk once payment has been made.

Full report in The Mercury