Man Rs 98000 Maruti Dealer Waiting 10 Years Vehicle Repair

A consumer who waited nearly 11 years to get his accident-damaged Maruti Suzuki Ertiga repaired has won Rs 98,000 in compensation after the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission dismissed an authorised dealer's appeal, holding that the dealership failed to prove the vehicle had ever been repaired despite repeated assurances. The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president Justice Sunita Yadav and member Dr Monika Malik was hearing an appeal filed by Shubh Motors Private Limited, an authorised Maruti Suzuki dealer, against the January 25, 2017 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panna. "There is no evidence which could prove that the subject vehicle was repaired by the opposite party.The complainant deserves to be compensated on account of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party," the commission said on July 1, upholding the compensation awarded to the consumer. The case highlights the ordeal of an owner who claimed that the Ertiga, purchased as a taxi to earn his livelihood, remained stuck at the dealership for years after meeting with an accident. Even after a decade, the commission noted, there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the Ertiga vehicle had actually been repaired or that the customer had been informed it was ready for delivery. Decade long battle The dispute began after one Neeraj Gupta's Ertiga, met with an accident on April 1, 2016. The following day, he took the damaged Ertiga vehicle to Shubh Motors Private Limited's workshop for repairs. According to Gupta, the dealership assured him that the repairs of Ertiga would be completed within 20 to 25 days. However, despite visiting the workshop repeatedly on April 27, May 12 and May 18, 2016, he found little progress. Frustrated by the delay, he approached the district consumer commission alleging deficiency in service. Assurances broken Gupta also claimed that before the repair work of the Ertiga began, the dealer had assured him that the engine would be opened only in his presence. He alleged that this promise was violated, as the engine was dismantled without informing him. He further argued that the dealership never produced any final repair bill or documentary proof that the Ertiga vehicle had actually been repaired. The Ertiga, he submitted, had been bought for commercial use as a taxi, and remaining off the road meant a prolonged loss of livelihood. During the hearing, his counsel also pointed out that the Ertiga vehicle had remained at the dealer's premises for over a decade. Dealer blamed customer The dealership denied any deficiency in service. It argued that the vehicle had suffered extensive damage and that repair work could begin only after the insurance survey was completed. According to the dealer, the estimated repair cost had been explained to Gupta and the vehicle had been fully repaired long before, but the customer neither collected it nor cleared the pending repair charges. The dealer also challenged the district commission's reliance on an audio recording, arguing that it did not satisfy the legal requirements governing electronic evidence. It further contended that the compensation awarded for alleged inconvenience lacked documentary support. No evidence After examining the record, the state commission found significant shortcomings in the dealer's defence. It observed that although the dealership claimed the vehicle had been repaired and was ready for delivery, it failed to produce any communication informing the customer that the repairs had been completed. There was also no final repair bill on record to substantiate its claim. The commission further noted that while an estimated engine repair cost of Rs 72,500 had been mentioned and one repair bill of Rs 70,228 was available, the dealer had not disclosed how much had been received from the insurance company after the survey. As a result, there was no clarity regarding the complainant's actual liability towards repair costs. Holding that the district commission had committed no error or illegality, the state commission affirmed the earlier order in its entirety. The district commission had directed the dealership to deliver the fully repaired vehicle after recovering only 50 per cent of the engine repair cost from the consumer, while adjusting any insurance claim amount already received. It had also awarded Rs 98,000 as compensation and Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs. With the appeal dismissed, the commission reinforced that businesses cannot escape liability where consumers are left waiting indefinitely without proof that promised services were ever completed. Significance The ruling underscores that authorised vehicle dealers must maintain proper records and cannot simply claim that repairs were completed without documentary proof. It affirms that failure to communicate repair status, produce final bills, or clearly account for insurance adjustments amounts to deficiency in service. The decision also highlights that prolonged delays in repairing a vehicle used for earning a livelihood can entitle consumers to compensation. Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Madhya Pradesh: 0755-2559778, 0755-2559993) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.