The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), has held M/s MG Motors India Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for manufacturing defects in the vehicle and failure to provide free warranty repairs. The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the manufacturer to refund the full price of the vehicle, along with compensation.

Brief Facts

The complainant, Anshul Jindal, purchased an MG Motor ZS Astro VTI-Tech CVT Sharp vehicle manufactured by M/s MG Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.1) from M/s MG Motor Gitansh Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.2) for Rs. 18,23,228 on 26-10-2022. The vehicle was covered under the MG Shield Warranty Extension and MG Shield RSA (Roadside Assistance) Extension schemes, both valid until 27-10-2027.

On 05-05-2023, while the complainant was driving towards Dehradun, the vehicle suffered a tyre puncture. Despite the puncture, the vehicle's Tyre Pressure Monitoring Sensor (TPMS) failed to display any warning regarding low tyre pressure. Upon inspection at a Delhi service centre, three of the four TPMS sensors were found defective. Even though the vehicle was under warranty, the complainant was charged Rs. 3,000 for the replacement of the faulty sensors.

Further, while on a trip to Gangotri Dham, the complainant discovered on the morning of 05-06-2023 that the car would not start and was displaying an “Electronic Steering Column Lock (ESCL) Fault” message, indicating a malfunction in the anti-theft steering lock mechanism. The complainant contacted customer care, which failed to provide on-site assistance and instead gave telephonic instructions that temporarily enabled the vehicle to start. He was then advised to drive the vehicle to the company's service centre in Dehradun.

According to the complainant, while he was driving the vehicle to the service centre as instructed, the steering wheel suddenly jammed due to the ESCL defect, causing the vehicle to meet with an accident. Following the accident, the complainant again sought assistance from the company, but it allegedly took more than ten hours for a technician to arrive at the site. Upon arrival, the technician allegedly demanded Rs. 10,000 for providing a loaner vehicle. When the complainant refused to pay the amount, he and his family, including minor children, were left stranded at the spot without any alternate arrangements.

Aggrieved by the continued defects in the car, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), alleging manufacturing defects and deficiency in service, and sought refund of the vehicle price, compensation for mental harassment, and litigation costs.

Arguments by the Opposite Parties

MG Motors India, the manufacturer denied knowledge of any steering lock incident and contended that the complainant never permitted a detailed technical inspection to identify the exact cause of the faults The dealer, Gitansh Motors, contended that its role was limited to selling the vehicle and would not be liable for any manufacturing defect.

Observations of the Commission

The District Commission observed that the defects were electronic and software-related in nature and could not have arisen due to the complainant's driving style or manner of usage. It held the manufacturer liable for manufacturing defects in the vehicle.

The Commission observed that the manufacturer never conducted any proper technical examination to ascertain the exact cause of the faults, despite the vehicle remaining at its service centre. The Commission found the manufacturer's claim that the complainant had refused inspection to be false. It noted that the workshop had only sought permission to process an insurance claim for repairs and had never requested permission for any independent technical investigation.

The Commission observed that the dealer had merely sold the vehicle and had no role in its manufacture. Therefore, the dealer could not be held liable for the vehicle's manufacturing defects. The Commission further observed that, despite the vehicle being covered by a valid warranty extension, the manufacturer failed to provide free warranty repairs when the complainant brought the defective vehicle to the service centre.Accordingly, the Commission held OP No. 1 liable for deficiency in service.

The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed OP No. 1 to refund the vehicle's purchase price of Rs. 18,23,228 with 7% annual interest, and further ordered it to pay Rs. 4,00,000 towards compensation and litigation costs.

Case Title: Anshul Jindal vs MG Motors India Pvt Ltd.

CC No.: DC/80/RBT/CC/54/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order