Consumer Court Directs Maruti Suzuki To Replace Car With E-20 Compliant Model

Amidst concerns raised by various vehicle owners over the use of E-20 petrol, a Consumer Commission in Chhattisgarh has passed a notable order, directing Maruti Suzuki to replace a non-E20-compliant vehicle.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, has directed Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and its authorised dealer, Nexa Magnato, to replace a Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid manufactured in January 2023 but sold to a consumer in June 2024 with a new E20-compatible vehicle, holding that the failure to inform the buyer about the vehicle's incompatibility with E20 fuel and the failure to provide a lasting solution amounted to deficiency in service.

The order was passed on July 14 by the Commission partly allowing a complaint filed by Dr. Premraj Devta under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Complaint

Dr. Devta alleged that the Maruti Suzuki Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid Delta Plus 1.5 purchased by him on June 3, 2024 repeatedly developed technical problems and failed to perform as expected. The vehicle was manufactured in January 2023. According to the complaint, the vehicle broke down within five months of purchase. When it was taken to the authorised service centre, contamination in the petrol was detected and the fuel tank was cleaned before the vehicle was returned. However, the same issue resurfaced, requiring the tank to be cleaned a second time, with the service centre suggesting that the earlier cleaning may not have been thorough.

The complainant further stated that a sample of the petrol, which had a curd-like consistency, was tested at a government-recognised laboratory and was found to contain ethanol. Despite these interventions, the vehicle continued to stall repeatedly, forcing him to approach the Consumer Commission. He claimed that the recurring defects caused him financial loss as well as mental agony.

Before the Commission, Maruti Suzuki and the dealer contended that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect and that the malfunction was caused by external factors, namely contaminated fuel. They argued that such circumstances were outside the scope of the vehicle's warranty and that they were therefore not liable to replace the vehicle or pay compensation.

Decision

After examining the records and hearing both sides, the Commission held that merely repairing the vehicle did not constitute an adequate resolution. It observed that the vehicle had been manufactured in January 2023 and was not compatible with E20 petrol (20% ethanol-blended fuel), yet it was sold to the complainant in June 2024 without informing him of this fact.

It was found that the vehicle made in January 2023, did not have an E20 petrol-compatible engine — i.e., it could not run on petrol blended with 20% ethanol. As a result, despite repeatedly changing the fuel, having the petrol tank cleaned, and refilling with fresh petrol, the vehicle kept breaking down.

The Opposite Parties attributed the problem to poor-quality petrol, and when the vehicle's engine developed a fault, they failed to take back the vehicle and did not provide him a new vehicle of the same model fitted with an E20-compatible engine. This was held to constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

Accordingly, the Commission directed the opposite parties to take back the complainant's vehicle and provide a new E20-compatible vehicle of the same model within 45 days.

If the replacement is not made within the stipulated period, the Commission ordered the opposite parties to pay ₹20,50,494, comprising the vehicle price of ₹18,29,000, ₹1,86,850 towards RTO charges and ₹34,644 towards insurance premium.

The Commission also awarded ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses, both payable within 45 days. In the event of default, the awarded amounts will carry 7% annual interest from the date of the order until payment.