Repeated Vehicle Issues Amount To Deficiency In Service: Chandigarh Consumer Commission Awards ₹4 Lakh Compensation To Ford Owner

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized dealer Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., holding them liable for deficiency in service due to the persistent issues faced by the complainant with a newly purchased vehicle.

Facts of the Case:

The complainant, Munir Kaushal, purchased a Ford Endeavour 3.2L Diesel Titanium+ 4x4 Automatic from Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh, an authorized dealer of Ford India Pvt. Ltd., on 11 April 2019 for ₹32,97,000. The vehicle was delivered on 26 April 2019 and was financed through a loan. The complainant also paid ₹98,075 for insurance and ₹92,007 for registration.

Within 3–4 months of purchase, the vehicle started developing electrical issues, particularly repeated battery drainage leading to starting problems. Despite several visits to the service centre, the problem allegedly persisted. The battery was replaced multiple times, and various components such as SYNC/APIM Module, FCIM, Panel Fuse Junction and FCDIM were also replaced, but the defect was not resolved.

Alleging that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect and that the opposite parties failed to rectify the issue or replace the vehicle, the complainant filed a consumer complaint seeking refund of the vehicle cost along with compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

Opposite Parties' Contentions:

The manufacturer (Ford India Pvt. Ltd.) and the dealer (Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd.) denied the allegations of any manufacturing defect. They contended that whenever the complainant reported an issue, the vehicle was inspected and repaired as per standard procedures, and no inherent defect was found during testing, including examination through a data logger device.

They further argued that the complainant had not produced any expert or technical evidence to prove a manufacturing defect, which is necessary under the Consumer Protection law. The opposite parties also pointed out that the vehicle had been driven around 15,000 kilometers, indicating that it was roadworthy and functioning normally.

Observations & Decision :

The Commission observed that the complainant had alleged a manufacturing defect in the vehicle due to repeated battery drainage and starting problems. However, the complainant failed to produce any expert or technical evidence to establish that the vehicle suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect. The Commission noted that mere replacement of certain parts under warranty does not by itself prove the existence of a manufacturing defect.

At the same time, the Commission observed that the complainant had to repeatedly approach the service centre, and several components of the vehicle were replaced during the warranty period. These repeated visits and continued inconvenience caused mental harassment and hardship to the complainant.

Accordingly, the Commission held that although refund or replacement of the vehicle could not be granted in the absence of proof of manufacturing defect, the circumstances indicated deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Therefore, the complaint was partly allowed, and the opposite parties were directed to pay ₹4,00,000 as lump-sum compensation, including litigation costs, to the complainant within 45 days, failing which the amount would carry 9% annual interest until realization.

Case Title: Munir Kaushal v. Ford India Pvt Ltd. and others

Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/294/2021

Appearances

FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for Complainant.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY: Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.1

Sh.Ankur Bali, Advocate for OP No.2, Advocates

Click Here To Read/Download Order