Fix Or Give Money Back Consumer Body Car Dealer Faulty Engine

The Kerala Consumer Commission has upheld an order directing a Volkswagen dealer and its workshop to either repair a customer’s car free of cost and return it in roadworthy condition or pay the vehicle’s value, after finding them guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

President B Sudheendra Kumar, along with members Ajith Kumar D and Radhakrishnan K R, however, granted relief to Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt Ltd, holding that no manufacturing defect was proved while deciding appeals filed by Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt Ltd and its authorised dealer and workshop, Phoenix Cars India Pvt Ltd.

“The district commission was justified in holding that there was a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 (Volkswagen authorised dealer and workshop). In the said circumstances, the direction by the district commission to repair the vehicle or pay the price of the vehicle by the opposite parties 1 and 2 stands confirmed,” the order read.

The commission noted that the dispute allegedly arose after the owner’s Volkswagen developed engine trouble in 2015, and the dealer demanded around Rs 3.75 lakh for repairs without conclusively establishing the cause of the defect, while attributing it to poor-quality fuel.

The complainant claimed that he had immediately stopped the vehicle on the roadside and reported the matter to the Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt Ltd. The next day, the car was allegedly towed to the workshop, for which the complainant paid Rs 6,000. After the repeated enquiries by the complainant over the phone, the dealer allegedly sent an estimate through e-mail for an amount of Rs 3.75 lakh to repair the vehicle.

It was claimed that the dealer did not explain the reason for the vehicle’s problem. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against Volkswagen and its dealers.

Appearing for Phoenix Cars India Pvt Ltd, advocate K. Dhananjayan argued that the problem with the vehicle developed when the car had covered 71,053 km.

It was added that since the vehicle was more than four years old, there was no warranty for the vehicle. It was claimed that on inspecting the vehicle, it was found that there was a problem with the common rail system of the vehicle.

The counsel added that the only option in such cases was the replacement of the common rail system. It was submitted that the said contingency had arisen due to the presence of a metal particle in the fuel and was obviously due to the poor quality of the fuel used by the complainant over a period of time.

It was added that, however, since the vehicle was outside the warranty period, the replacement could not be considered under the warranty, and it was communicated to the complainant.

The company estimated an amount of Rs 3.72 lakh for the repair of the vehicle, and it was argued that they offered a 15 per cent discount on the spare parts and a 25 per cent discount on labour charges.

It was further submitted that the complainant was not prepared to accept the said offer, and therefore, there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the company and its dealers.

The counsel submitted that since no warranty or extended warranty was available for the vehicle, the company and dealers were justified in demanding an amount of Rs 3.75 lakh for repairing the vehicle.

Appearing for Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt Ltd, advocate Azeem Mohammed contended that no manufacturing defect had been established in the vehicle and, therefore, the manufacturer could not be held liable. He argued that the District Commission erred in fastening liability on the manufacturer in the absence of evidence proving any defect attributable to Volkswagen.

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More