Defective Land Rover Vehicle: Uttarakhand State Commission Orders ₹1.65 Crore Refund With Interest, Finds Manufacturer Liable

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand, Dehradun, comprising Ms. Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr. B.S. Manral (Member), held Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd. liable for selling a vehicle with inherent manufacturing defects and engaging in unfair trade practices. The Commission observed that misleading advertisements regarding a vehicle's performance—particularly its acceleration—and unauthorised structural alteration of the chassis constituted gross deficiency in service. Facts The complainant, M/s Eapro Global Limited, purchased a “Defender 110 X P400” for ₹1,65,61,234 on 21.10.2022 from authorised dealer Shiva Motocorp. It was alleged that the vehicle failed to meet advertised specifications, particularly the 0–100 km/h acceleration of 6.1 seconds, instead taking over 7.1 seconds. Further, the vehicle lacked the “Fuel Filler Flap – Central Locking” system despite it being part of the standard specifications. The complainant also reported persistent defects, including a screeching sound, defective components, and prolonged servicing. It was further alleged that during repairs, the opposite parties carried out chassis cutting, welding and riveting without the complainant's consent. Contentions The dealer contended that the complainant was not a “consumer” as the vehicle was used for commercial purposes and submitted that the features were subject to manufacturer specifications. The manufacturer argued that the advertised acceleration was achievable only under controlled test conditions and that the missing fuel flap locking feature was due to a global chip shortage. It also raised the plea of absence of privity of contract with the complainant. Observations and Decision The Commission held that the complainant qualifies as a “consumer” and rejected the objection regarding commercial use. It observed that the advertised acceleration figure carried no disclaimer and that failure to disclose “controlled conditions” amounted to misleading representation. On the missing fuel flap locking system, the Commission held that since it formed part of the standard specifications, its absence constituted a defect affecting the vehicle's fundamental features. The Commission further noted that the admitted chassis cutting altered the structural foundation of the vehicle, thereby establishing inherent manufacturing defects that were not curable. It also rejected the manufacturer's defence of lack of privity, holding that liability cannot be avoided in cases of manufacturing defects. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed against Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd.. The manufacturer was directed to refund ₹1,65,61,234 with interest at 7% per annum from 27.03.2024 till payment, along with ₹50,000 as litigation costs. The dealer was exonerated from liability. The complainant was directed to return the vehicle. Case Name: M/s Eapro Global Limited v. Shiva Motocorp – Jaguar Land Rover & Anr. Case No.: SC/5/CC/2/2024 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Defective Land Rover Vehicle: Uttarakhand State Commission Orders ₹1.65 Crore Refund With Interest, Finds Manufacturer Liable

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Defective Land Rover Vehicle: Uttarakhand State Commission Orders ₹1.65 Crore Refund With Interest, Finds Manufacturer Liable

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers