Consumer Court asks Maruti to replace damaged car in E20 case

A Raipur consumer commission has ordered Maruti Suzuki and its dealer to replace a doctor's Grand Vitara with an E20-compliant model or refund Rs 20.50 lakh, ruling that selling a 16-month-old vehicle with recurring engine defects constitutes unfair trade

Raipur: A district consumer commission in Chhattisgarh has asked a Maruti Suzuki dealer to replace a car bought by a doctor with a new E20 petrol-compliant model after holding the dealer sold a vehicle made 16 months ago and failed to rectify recurring engine problems despite repeated repairs.

The commission, in its July 14 order, held respondents (Maruti Suzuki and the dealer) committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice by refusing to take back the defective vehicle and provide a new vehicle of the same model equipped with an E20-compatible engine.

---

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional Bench, Raipur, also directed that if the replacement vehicle was not provided within 45 days, the dealer and the manufacturer must refund Rs 20.50 lakh paid by the complainant towards the vehicle, registration and insurance, besides paying compensation and litigation costs.

The order was passed by Commission Chairman Prashant Kundu and member Dr Anand Varghese on a complaint filed by Raipur-based doctor Premraj Debta.

The commission awarded Rs 1 lakh as compensation to the complainant for mental harassment and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses, payable within 45 days.

According to the complainant, he purchased a top-end Maruti Grand Vitara Intelligent Electric (Strong Hybrid) Zeta Plus 1.5 CVT from Nexa Magneto (Skya Automobiles), an authorised dealer of the company, on June 3, 2024, for Rs 18.29 lakh. Including insurance and RTO charges, he paid a total of Rs 20,50,494 to the Maruti Suzuki dealer, the order said.

The vehicle was covered under an extended warranty valid until May 2029 or one lakh kilometres run, whichever comes first.

During the hearing, the complainant’s counsel said after the vehicle had covered around 21,913 km, its engine warning light came on and the car broke down on November 11, 2024. The dealer’s service centre initially attributed the problem to adulterated fuel and drained the fuel tank before refilling it with fresh petrol.

However, the vehicle allegedly stalled again after travelling about 60 km.

Despite repeated cleaning of the fuel tank and assurances by the dealer that the problem had been resolved, the engine reportedly continued to malfunction, forcing the complainant to repeatedly return the vehicle to the workshop, he said.

The doctor also approached the petrol pump where he had refuelled the car, but the outlet reportedly informed him that the fuel quality met prescribed standards and no similar complaints had been received from other customers, according to the counsel.

The complainant stated that Maruti Suzuki later informed him by email that the engine and certain components of the car required replacement due to fuel adulteration at an estimated cost of about Rs 5.3 lakh and refused to undertake the repairs free of cost despite the vehicle being under warranty.

As the car continued to develop engine and hybrid system faults even after repeated repairs, the complainant sought either a replacement or a refund, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

After hearing all relevant parties, the commission observed that the vehicle had been manufactured in January 2023, but sold to the complainant in June 2024.

The panel held that the complainant had been sold a vehicle manufactured nearly one year and four months earlier, which was not equipped with an E20-compatible engine.

The commission observed that despite repeated fuel changes and cleaning of the fuel tank, the vehicle continued to develop faults, forcing the complainant to make several visits to the service centre.

The commission held that the opposite parties (respondents) committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice by refusing to take back the defective vehicle and provide a new vehicle of the same model equipped with an E20-compatible engine.

It directed the dealer and manufacturer to take back the existing vehicle and provide the complainant with a new Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid Zeta Plus equipped with an E20-compatible engine within 45 days.

Failing this, they will have to refund Rs 20,50,494, comprising the vehicle price, RTO charges and insurance premium, the order said.

The commission also awarded Rs 1 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses, payable within 45 days.

It further ordered that if these amounts are not paid within the stipulated period, they will carry interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum until payment.