15 years after luxury SUV worth Rs 28 lakh stalled within 6 days of delivery, Kerala consumer wins full refund

However, the commission modified an earlier order of the Kerala State Consumer Commission by removing the award of interest and compensation, noting that the buyer had refused the company’s offer to replace the engine under warranty.

NCDRC upholds service deficiency claim

• The complainant also seems to have resisted the replacement of the engine and did not take back the vehicle, which is still lying with the dealers.
• In this given situation and on the facts of the present case we agree with the finding of the state consumer commission that there is a deficiency in service.
• The dealer has not filed any appeal and it is only the manufacturer who has come up before us challenging the impugned order.
• Having agreed with the conclusions drawn by the state consumer commission in the end, we find that even since the complainant did not agree for the replacement of the engine, the entire relief as granted by the state commission may not be tenable on the peculiar facts of this case.
• The complainant could have got the issue resolved with the replacement of the new engine that had been offered.

• At the same time, he suffered the trauma of purchasing a vehicle for Rs 28 lakh and then not being able to utilise it which he had to ultimately surrender as the vehicle had an imperfect and deficient engine.
• The vehicle is almost 15 years old and is lying with the dealer and there is no future value of this vehicle, keeping in view its age.
• Even otherwise, it has remained unused for 15 years and therefore will be of no use to the complainant as well.
• It would be also of a negligible value to the respondents
• In the background that the complainant had also refused to get the engine replaced, we find that the joint and several liability fixed by the state consumer commission deserves to be confirmed only to the principal amount of Rs 28,00,000, without any interest or any compensation.
• The reason being that the complainant also could have accepted a brand new engine way back in 2012 under the warranty as there was no complaint about the manufacturing defect in the entire vehicle.
• It was only the engine which was defective and not any other part of the vehicle.

Final directions

• Modifying the state consumer commission’s order, the NCDRC directed the manufacturer and dealer to refund Rs 28 lakh to the complainant within two months.
• Pay 9 per cent interest only if the refund is delayed beyond that period.
• Take ownership of the vehicle once the complainant surrenders the registration documents through the state consumer commission.
• The appeal was therefore partly allowed, confirming the finding of deficiency in service but modifying the monetary relief granted earlier.

Premium SUV fails within days of purchase

• The dispute traces back to June 2011, when one Jaison Lukose of Kottayam, Kerala, purchased a Nissan X-Trail SLX through EVM Automobiles Private Limited, Kochi, for approximately Rs 28 lakh.
• The excitement of owning a high-end SUV, however, was short-lived. According to the complaint, the vehicle had barely run 780 km when it abruptly stalled on June 28, 2011, just six days after delivery.
• The car was towed to the dealer’s workshop, inspected, and returned to the owner the same day.
• But the problems did not go away.
• The engine continued to produce unusual noise, forcing repeated visits to the service centre.

• After the vehicle had run around 10,947 km, it was again taken to the workshop for repairs.
• Despite the dealer’s efforts, the issue persisted.
• The crisis reached a breaking point on September 27, 2011, when the engine suddenly stopped while the vehicle had run only 11,922 km, effectively rendering the SUV unusable.
• The complainant alleged that the car remained dismantled at the dealer’s workshop and could not be repaired.
• Meanwhile, he continued to bear the financial burden of the purchase, including monthly EMIs of Rs 63,514, along with additional expenses for alternative travel.
• Feeling cheated after investing in what he believed was a premium vehicle, Lukose approached the Kerala State Consumer Commission in 2012, seeking a refund of the purchase price and Rs 10 lakh compensation for harassment and financial loss.

Manufacturer blames adulterated fuel

• Nissan and the dealer contested the complaint and denied any manufacturing defect.
• Their primary defence was that the vehicle had been run on inferior or adulterated diesel mixed with kerosene, which allegedly caused the engine malfunction.
• The company claimed service inspections indicated contamination in the fuel and the owner had been advised to use better-quality diesel.
• The manufacturer also emphasised that it had taken proactive steps to resolve the issue.
• According to Nissan, a brand-new engine had been airlifted and offered as a warranty replacement free of charge.
• However, Lukose refused to accept the engine replacement and insisted instead on either a brand-new vehicle or a complete refund, the company told the commission.

Expert inspection finds technical engine issue

• To resolve the dispute, the state consumer commission had appointed an expert commissioner, an associate professor of mechanical engineering, to inspect the vehicle and analyse the cause of the engine failure.
• The expert report painted a troubling picture. It concluded that the engine failure was not a normal occurrence and had happened far earlier than the expected life of the vehicle.
• The inspection revealed a significant difference in fuel injector flow rate in the third cylinder, which led to misfiring, abnormal combustion and overheating of engine components.
• Over time, this caused excessive stress on engine parts, including the journal bearing and connecting rod, eventually resulting in the collapse of the engine cylinder and complete engine failure.
• The expert concluded that the malfunction was caused by an inherent technical problem in the integrated design of the engine, which triggered premature failure.

State commission orders refund, compensation

• Relying heavily on the expert report, the Kerala State Consumer Commission concluded that the vehicle had indeed suffered from a defective engine — the most critical component of any automobile.
• The state consumer commission held the manufacturer and dealer jointly liable for supplying a defective vehicle and ordered them to refund Rs 28 lakh, the price of the vehicle.
• Pay 9 per cent interest from the date of filing the complaint.
• Pay Rs 2.5 lakh as compensation for the consumer’s suffering
• The manufacturer challenged this decision before the NCDRC.