RAJPUT v AKOMA & ANOR (Civil Dispute)

The applicant, Rajput, brought a claim against the respondents, Akoma and another, for the sale of a second-hand car that was subject to a significant defect. Rajput alleged that Akoma engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by failing to disclose the defect and sought a refund of the purchase price along with damages for breach of statutory guarantee. The matter was heard and determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether Akoma had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, whether Rajput was entitled to a refund of the purchase price, and whether Rajput had a duty to mitigate his losses. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine the appropriate remedy in the event that Akoma did not comply with the judgment.

The Tribunal found that Akoma had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by failing to disclose the defect in the vehicle. Rajput was therefore entitled to a refund of the purchase price of $5,959.70. The Tribunal also found that Rajput did not have a duty to mitigate his losses in this instance. In the event that Akoma did not comply with the judgment, the Tribunal ordered that Rajput could dispose of the vehicle to a second-hand dealer or wrecker at a reasonable cost, and retain the proceeds of the sale as part payment of the judgment debt.

The Tribunal ordered that Akoma pay Rajput $5,959.70 by a specified date. If Akoma did not comply, Rajput could dispose of the vehicle and retain the proceeds as part payment of the judgment debt.