A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chhattisgarh’s capital, Raipur, has ordered a car dealer to replace an old model of a car sold to a doctor after it broke down repeatedly with a new vehicle compliant with E20 petrol.
The complainant, Dr Premraj Debta, 41, bought a Maruti Grand Vitara Hybrid Zeta Plus for Rs 18.29 lakh in June 2024. The car was under warranty until May 2029 or until it covered 1 lakh kilometres. Debta also paid Rs 1.86 lakh towards insurance and RTO fees.
Debta used the car for five months, during which it covered 21,913 kilometres. On November 11, 2024, the dashboard indicated an engine problem, and the car broke down. He immediately took it to the showroom from where he had purchased it. After inspecting the vehicle, the dealer told him that adulterated petrol had allegedly been used, affecting the engine.
Over the following months, the car was repaired multiple times, after which Debta was informed that the sales manager had sold him an old model of the car and that he should contact the sales manager. When Debta approached the general manager, he was told that the car would neither be replaced nor would he receive a refund. Instead, he was asked to either sell the car for Rs 12 lakh or pay Rs 5.30 lakh to replace the old parts with new ones.
The car was left with the dealer for safekeeping at Rs 200 per day, following which Debta approached the commission against the dealer and the manufacturer. The commission heard both the dealer and the manufacturer, who maintained that the engine contained a white jelly-like substance due to contaminated fuel, which had damaged the engine. They argued that this was an external factor, and therefore not covered under the warranty, which was valid until May 2029.
After hearing all three parties, Prashant Kundu, President, and Dr Anand Varghese, Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional Bench, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), observed that the car was manufactured in January 2023 and purchased by the complainant on May 31, 2024.
“So, the car, which was one year and five months old, was sold as new. Thus, it is clear from the present complaint that the 17-month-old vehicle sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was not, in fact, an E20 petrol-supported vehicle. Consequently, according to the contention of the opposite parties, the complainant’s vehicle suffered engine damage due to E20 fuel because the petrol was contaminated. In this regard, the complainant had no control over the matter,” the commission observed.
Story continues below this ad
Ruling in favour of the complainant, the commission said: “Thus, after a comprehensive examination of the matter, it is the opinion of this District Commission that the opposite parties, on 03.06.2024, sold to the complainant a Maruti Grand Vitara IE Strong Hybrid Zeta Plus vehicle that was 1 year and 4 months old and manufactured in January 2023. As the vehicle did not have an E20 petrol-supported engine, i.e., it was not compatible with petrol containing 20 per cent ethanol, the vehicle repeatedly stalled despite the fuel being changed several times, the petrol tank being cleaned, fresh petrol being filled, and the vehicle being driven thereafter. As a result, the complainant had to take the vehicle to the service centre on several occasions. The opposite parties attributed the problem to the absence of quality petrol and, after the vehicle’s engine developed defects, failed to take back the vehicle sold to the complainant on 03.06.2024 and failed to provide the complainant with a new vehicle of the same model equipped with an E20 petrol-supported engine. This amounts to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. Accordingly, the complainant has been found to have partially succeeded in proving the case against the opposite parties.”
The commission directed that a new vehicle of the same model equipped with an E20-compatible engine be provided to the complainant within 45 days. If this is not done within the stipulated period, the entire amount paid by the complainant must be refunded.
The commission also awarded Rs 1 lakh as compensation for the mental harassment caused to the complainant, to be paid within 45 days. If the amount is not paid within that period, it will carry interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum.
