Mitsubishi ordered to repay customer over ‘misleading’ fuel label

A car giant has been ordered to repay a customer who fought back over a “misleading” fuel label attached to his new four-wheel drive.

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”.

Mitsubishi is appealing the decision. Picture: iStock

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”.

VCAT ordered Mitsubishi to refund a customer $39,500 over his Triton’s excessive fuel consumption. Picture: Supplied

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.”

Mitsubishi Motors Australia spokeswoman told news.com.au the company “strongly disagreed” with VCAT’s findings.

“The tribunal took into account test results provided by the customer of their used vehicle, which was tested to a different methodology to the ADR81/02 standard outlined on the fuel consumption label,” the spokeswoman said.

“The testing used different standards to achieve a result, including vehicle load, fuel quality standard and the tests were outside laboratory conditions as they utilised portable testing equipment.

“Mitsubishi Motors Australia does not agree with the testing underlying his claim, due to the many variations in the testing which makes the results presented by Mr Begovic to VCAT incomparable to the official ADR test cycle figures on the vehicle.”

She said Mitsubishi Motors Australia noted that “real-world testing is different to laboratory testing”.

“The fuel consumption label on all vehicles states ‘actual fuel consumption and CO2 emissions depend on factors such as traffic conditions, vehicle conditions and how you drive’ and this applies to all vehicles on the road today,” she said.

“Mr Begovic also had modified his vehicle from the factory standard which can also lead to increased fuel consumption.

“Mitsubishi Motors Australia has separately applied for leave to appeal the tribunal’s decision in the Supreme Court.”

Continue the conversation @carey_alexis | [e-mail]