Skoda Auto And Its Mumbai Dealer Ordered To Pay Rs 3 25 Lakh Compensation After 58 Day Repair Delay On Five Month Old Superb

The car was delivered on June 4, 2013. Just five months after delivery, the complainant found the car would not start. He informed the dealer, who visited his premises the next day, confirmed the engine failure, and issued a breakdown report. However, the dealer refused to tow the car to the workshop.The dealer eventually managed to start the car on November 1, 2013 and asked the complainant to drive it to the workshop himself. The car went in and did not come back until December 28, 2013, a wait of 58 days.The reason given by the dealer: the repair required imported spare parts that had to be sourced from abroad and supplied by Skoda Auto India, causing the prolonged delay.What the Complainant DidDuring those 58 days without his car, the complainant was not idle. He wrote multiple emails to the dealer demanding either a replacement car or daily compensation for the loss of use of his premium vehicle.The dealer offered Rs 3,500 per day as compensation. The complainant rejected this, demanding Rs 15,000 per day, which he said was the market rate for hiring a car of equivalent standard to the Skoda Superb.He also wrote to Skoda Auto India directly. The manufacturer acknowledged the complaint, said it had taken up the matter with the dealer, and then went completely silent.The complainant then approached Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, which wrote to both the dealer and the manufacturer. Neither responded.Having exhausted all avenues, he filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2015, seeking:Full refund of the purchase price of Rs 27.82 lakhCompensation of Rs 8.50 lakh calculated at Rs 15,000 per day for 58 daysWhat the Dealer and Skoda SaidThe Dealer's Defence: The delay in returning the car was caused entirely by the non-availability of imported spare parts, which were to be supplied by Skoda Auto India from abroad. The dealer argued this was beyond its control.Skoda Auto India's Defence: Skoda argued it had no direct contract with the buyer. The sale was between the complainant and the dealer, not with the manufacturer. Since there was no privity of contract, Skoda argued it could not be held directly liable for the dealer's service failures.What the Maharashtra State Commission SaidThe bench comprising Presiding Member Poonam V. Maharshi and Member Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan rejected both defences and ruled firmly against the dealer and manufacturer.On the dealer's defence: The Commission held that keeping a five-month-old premium car for nearly two months to fix a starting problem was simply unacceptable. Internal supply chain problems between a dealer and a manufacturer are not the consumer's concern. The consumer's contract is with the authorised network as a whole, and the dealer cannot pass the buck to the manufacturer's logistics failures.On Skoda's principal-to-principal defence: The Commission delivered a sharp ruling on this point, observing that a manufacturer who extends a warranty and compels the consumer to approach its authorised dealer network for mandatory servicing, on pain of losing warranty protection, cannot then conveniently hide behind a principal-to-principal clause when that very network fails due to the manufacturer's own logistical defaults. The warranty creates a direct obligation, and Skoda's own supply chain failure was the root cause of the 58-day delay.On the quantum of compensation: The Commission found the complainant's claim of Rs 15,000 per day excessive and unsupported. He had not produced actual bills or receipts for alternative transportation. However, the Commission used the dealer's own offer of Rs 3,500 per day as a benchmark. For 58 days, this worked out to Rs 2,03,000/.The Commission then awarded a lump sum of Rs 3 lakh covering mental agony, harassment, and loss of use of the vehicle, plus Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs, totalling Rs 3.25 lakh.Both Skoda Auto India and Autobahn Enterprises were directed to pay Rs 3.25 lakh jointly within 45 days, failing which the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum until fully paid.Key TakeawaysA manufacturer who issues a warranty and mandates use of its authorised service network cannot escape liability when that network fails. The warranty is a direct commitment to the consumer, regardless of dealer-manufacturer contractual arrangements.Premium car buyers should document all communication with dealers and manufacturers during service delays. Emails, breakdown reports, and written complaints are critical evidence before consumer forums.When claiming compensation for alternative transportation, consumers must support their claim with actual bills and receipts. Unsubstantiated claims will be scaled down by the commission.Internal supply chain failures, such as delays in importing spare parts, are not a valid defence against a consumer complaint. The consumer's right to timely service is not subject to a manufacturer's logistics capabilities.A 58-day repair turnaround on a 5-month-old premium vehicle will be treated as clear deficiency in service, regardless of technical complexity or parts availability.(With TOI inputs)