Kurnool Consumer Commission Orders Kia India To Refund ₹11 Lakh For Recurring DPF Issues In Sonet
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
25 Sept 2026 5:29 PM IST
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising President Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar and Members Sri N. Narayana Reddy and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar, directed Kia India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorised dealer MG Brothers Kia, Kurnool, to refund the ex-showroom price of a Kia Sonet diesel vehicle after finding that repeated repair attempts failed to provide a permanent solution to recurring Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) issues. The Commission held that although a manufacturing defect had not been conclusively established, the failure of the manufacturer and dealer to provide a durable and effective solution during the warranty period amounted to deficiency in service.
Facts
The complainant purchased a Kia Sonet HTX Diesel vehicle in March 2022 for approximately ₹13.69 lakh on-road and subsequently obtained an extended warranty valid up to March 2027. According to the complainant, the vehicle began displaying recurring DPF-related warnings soon after purchase, including repeated "Diesel Filter Regeneration Request" alerts on the instrument cluster. He approached the authorised service centre on numerous occasions, allegedly more than fifteen times, for the same issue.
The service centre undertook several interventions, including DPF regeneration, replacement of sensors and battery, DPF refurbishment, fuel injector refurbishment and ECM software upgrades. However, the DPF warnings allegedly continued to recur despite these measures.
The complainant contended that he complied with all instructions issued by the service personnel, including manual regeneration procedures and highway driving requirements. Alleging that the vehicle suffered from a recurring defect which the opposite parties failed to permanently rectify, he sought replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price along with compensation.
Contentions of the Parties
Kia India Private Limited and its authorised dealer, MG Brothers Kia, denied the allegations of manufacturing defect and deficiency in service. They submitted that the vehicle had run more than 43,000 kilometres and remained roadworthy. According to them, DPF alerts in BS-VI diesel vehicles are normal operational alerts influenced by driving patterns, short-distance usage, urban traffic conditions and fuel quality, and do not indicate an inherent defect.
The opposite parties further contended that the complainant had, on certain occasions, insisted on taking delivery of the vehicle without permitting completion of the prescribed regeneration road-test cycle. They also attributed the later recurrence of DPF warnings to external factors such as rat-bite damage to sensor wiring and abnormal fuel injector back-leakage.
Observations & Decision
Evaluating the material on record, the Commission observed that the DPF issue surfaced at a very early stage of ownership when the vehicle had covered only 364 kilometres and continued despite numerous repair attempts during the warranty period. The service records revealed repeated DPF-related complaints and multiple technical interventions, including regeneration procedures, sensor replacement, DPF refurbishment, fuel injector refurbishment and software upgrades.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. (2024), the Commission held that an ordinary consumer cannot be expected to possess specialised technical knowledge regarding complex emission-control systems. It observed that driving in congested urban traffic cannot be characterised as improper usage unless the manufacturer had specifically informed the consumer about the operational requirements necessary for the proper functioning of the DPF system.
The Commission found that the opposite parties failed to produce convincing technical or expert evidence establishing that the recurring DPF alerts were solely attributable to the complainant's driving pattern. It further held that explanations such as rat-bite damage and subsequent fuel-injector back-leakage could not satisfactorily account for the continuous history of DPF-related complaints dating back to 2022. While repeated repairs alone may not conclusively establish a manufacturing defect, the Commission held that the failure to provide an effective, durable and permanent solution to a recurring problem during the warranty period constituted deficiency in service.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Kia India Pvt. Ltd. and MG Brothers Kia, jointly and severally, to refund the vehicle's ex-showroom price of ₹10,99,890, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., February 25, 2026, until realisation, upon return of the vehicle by the complainant. The Commission also awarded ₹1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs, directing compliance within 45 days.
Case Title: Tummakomma Ravindranath v. Kia India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2026.
