Failure To Replace Coolant Led To Engine Damage: Kurnool Consumer Commission Directs Maruti Service Centre To Carry Out Free Repairs
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member) and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), held Adarsha Automotives Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and negligence for failing to properly inspect and replace coolant during periodic servicing of a Maruti Brezza vehicle, resulting in engine damage...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member) and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), held Adarsha Automotives Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and negligence for failing to properly inspect and replace coolant during periodic servicing of a Maruti Brezza vehicle, resulting in engine damage due to overheating.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The complainant, Mrs. P. Masumbi, a Government teacher from Kurnool, regularly serviced her Maruti Brezza vehicle at the authorised service centre of Adarsha Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No.1 She alleged that despite repeated periodic maintenance services, the service centre failed to properly inspect and replace the engine coolant in accordance with the maintenance schedule.
On 26.08.2025, while travelling near Shadnagar for her husband's dialysis treatment, the vehicle allegedly overheated and broke down. Temporary repairs were carried out at Sri Jayarama Motors, where it was reportedly found that the issue was caused by insufficient coolant. The complainant also incurred towing and alternate transportation expenses.
Subsequently, the vehicle was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1, which issued an estimate of ₹1,79,623 for engine repairs. The complainant alleged that the service centre initially assured free repair admitting lapse in servicing, but later denied liability. Aggrieved, she approached the Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Contentions of the Parties:
Adarsha Automotives denied deficiency in service and contended that all services were carried out according to manufacturer guidelines. It argued that coolant replacement was not due during the earlier service interval and claimed that the complainant continued to use the vehicle despite overheating warnings, which resulted in engine damage.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. contended that the vehicle was out of warranty since 2019 and no manufacturing defect had been reported during the warranty period. It further argued that dealers operate independently on a principal-to-principal basis and therefore the manufacturer could not be held liable for acts of the authorised service centre.
Observations and Decision
The Commission observed that the complainant had been regularly servicing the vehicle with Opposite Party No.1 and had relied upon its professional expertise. Upon examining the service history, invoices, WhatsApp messages and internal email communications, the Commission found contradictions in the stand taken by the service centre regarding coolant replacement.
The Commission noted that internal email communications revealed that coolant replacement, though mandatory at the relevant stage, had not been carried out and only coolant top-up was done. It held that the contradictory explanations of the service centre established negligence and deficiency in service.
The Commission further held that the breakdown due to overheating shortly after servicing, coupled with repair records from another authorised workshop, established a direct nexus between negligent servicing and the engine damage. It also observed that the initial assurance of free repair followed by its withdrawal amounted to unfair trade practice.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Opposite Party No.1 to either repair the vehicle engine free of cost and hand over the vehicle in roadworthy condition or pay ₹1,79,623 towards repair charges. It also directed payment of a consolidated ₹1 lakh towards towing charges, alternate conveyance and compensation for mental agony, along with ₹5,000 as litigation costs. The complaint against Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. was
Case Title: Mrs. P. Masumbi v. M/s Adarsha Automotives Pvt. Ltd. & Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
Case No.: CC/160/2025