.webp)
In a significant consumer protection ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional Bench), Raipur, has directed Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and its authorised dealer to replace a customer's Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid with a new vehicle fitted with an E20 fuel-compatible engine. The Commission held that selling a vehicle without adequately addressing its compatibility with E20 fuel amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
Background
The complaint was filed by Dr. Premraj Devta after purchasing a Maruti Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid Zeta Plus. According to the complaint, the vehicle repeatedly stalled during use. Despite multiple visits to the authorised service centre, fuel tank cleaning, and refilling with fresh petrol, the problem continued.
The manufacturer and dealer maintained that the issue was caused by poor-quality fuel rather than any defect in the vehicle. However, the complainant argued that the vehicle itself was not designed to operate on E20 petrol, which was the root cause of the recurring breakdowns. He also claimed that his request for a replacement vehicle was declined.
The Additional Bench comprising President Prashant Kundu and Member Dr. Anand Varghese examined the material placed before it and concluded that repeated repairs alone did not resolve the consumer's grievance.
"The complainant has been able to establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties to the extent reflected in the record."
The Commission noted that the vehicle had been manufactured before it was equipped with an E20-compatible engine but was later sold without providing an effective solution when compatibility issues arose. It held that the failure to replace the vehicle despite recurring complaints justified consumer relief.
Allowing the complaint in part, the Commission directed Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and its authorised dealer to replace the existing vehicle with a new Grand Vitara of the same model equipped with an E20-compatible engine within 45 days.
If the replacement is not carried out within the stipulated period, the opposite parties must refund ₹20,50,494, covering the vehicle price, RTO charges and insurance premium.
The Commission also awarded ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses, with payment directed within 45 days.
