Kia Seltos Dashboard Glare Case: Delhi Consumer Commission Holds Kia India, Authorised Dealer Guilty Of Unfair Trade Practice

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi, comprising President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal, held Kia India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorised dealer, Allied Motors Ltd., guilty of unfair trade practice in a dispute concerning dashboard reflections on the windshield of a Kia Seltos GTX Plus. The Commission directed the opposite parties to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment, while clarifying that it could not give a finding on the design of the car or the glass.

Facts

The complainant, Pradeep Kumar Chhabra, purchased a Kia Seltos GTX Plus in April 2025. He alleged that reflections of the dashboard on the windshield obstructed his visibility while driving during both daytime and nighttime, posing a potential safety risk to him, his passengers and other road users.

The complainant alleged that despite bringing the issue to the attention of the manufacturer and the authorised dealer, no satisfactory remedy was provided. He contended that the dashboard reflections affected driving visibility and relied on photographs, correspondence and technical material in support of his complaint.

Aggrieved, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi.

Kia India and Allied Motors denied that the vehicle suffered from any defect. They contended that it had undergone the prescribed quality checks, inspections and homologation procedures before being marketed. They further argued that windshield reflections could arise from factors such as dashboard geometry, windshield angle, lighting conditions and individual visual perception.

The opposite parties also relied on a joint inspection and re-examination conducted on December 8, 2025, which, according to them, revealed no abnormality in the vehicle.

Observations and Decision

The Commission referred to the response received from the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), which stated that IS 2553 (Part 2): 2019 did not specify reflection-control requirements for laminated windshields.

The Commission held the opposite parties guilty of unfair trade practice in relation to their treatment of the dashboard-reflection issue as a “natural” phenomenon. However, it clarified that it could not give a finding regarding the design of the car or the glass.

The Commission directed the opposite parties to pay ₹5,00,000 as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant within two months from the date of the order. In case of default, the amount would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.

Appearances:

Complainant: Appeared in person.

For Kia India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1): Advocates Vijay Shankar and Sarthak Miglani.

For Allied Motors Ltd. (OP-2): Advocate Bharat Kumar.