Face of Nation : A David and Goliath battle between a Victorian car owner and Mitsubishi has landed in court — and it has left the company with a hefty bill.
The issue began in 2017 when Zelko Begovic bought a new Mitsubishi MQ Triton four-wheel drive from Melbourne dealership Berwick Mitsubishi.
A fuel consumption sticker was attached to the vehicle’s windscreen, which claimed it consumed 9 litres per 100 kilometres in urban areas, 6.8 litres in the country and 7.6 litres per 100 kilometres for a “combined test”.
It also bore the disclaimer: “Vehicle tested in accordance with ADR 81/02. Actual fuel consumption and CO2 emissions depend on factors such as traffic conditions, vehicle condition and how you drive”.
But Mr Begovic claims his vehicle’s actual fuel consumption is much higher than the figures represented on that label.
He took the matter to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), which last month ruled the sticker had made “unusual and excessive” claims.
VCAT ordered the dealer to repay the customer $39,500, although Mitsubishi, which is handling the matter on Berwick Mitsubishi’s behalf, is now appealing the decision in the Supreme Court.
According to legal documents seen by news.com.au, Mr Begovic claims the vehicle’s actual fuel consumption is “significantly higher than the fuel consumption represented on the label and the label is misleading”, arguing the car is “defective” as a result of that “excessive fuel consumption”.
Meanwhile, Mitsubishi insists the label is correct, “not misleading or deceptive” and the vehicle is therefore “not defective”.
Mr Begovic has kept a slew of petrol receipts as evidence and also visited the dealer and a different Mitsubishi outlet on a number of occasions to have the fuel consumption checked, but no problem was detected.
He argued he was specifically looking for a vehicle with better fuel consumption than his last car, and he chose the Triton after researching the fuel information on the label.
ABMARC engineering director Andrea Winkelmann examined the evidence and found Mr Begovic’s Triton used 26.7 per cent more fuel than the sticker claimed, noting the difference was “unusual and excessive”.
Senior tribunal member Leneen Forde concluded the label was “misleading and deceptive” and “both the dealer and the manufacturer engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct”.
“The label information was false based on the expert evidence. It misled Mr Begovic to believe the vehicle had certain fuel consumption characteristics it did not have,” the judgment reads.
“He relied upon the representation in the label in making his decision to purchase the vehicle. He wanted a vehicle with a better fuel consumption than his 2008 vehicle.
“In purchasing the vehicle, he did not get what was represented to him by the fuel label. He suffered a loss by reason of increased fuel costs which he did not bargain for when purchasing the vehicle.”
