Back
A Premium Purchase Gone Wrong: MG Motors Held for 'Electronic Failure' as Consumer Commission Orders Full Refund
A Hard-Learned Lesson in Consumer Rights What happens when a high-end vehicle, purchased with the expectation of safety and reliability, turns into a mobile hazard? For Anshul Jindal, the dream of owning an MG Motor ZS Astro VTI-Tech CVT Sharp quickly soured. After enduring a series of critical electronic malfunctions—including a failed Tyre Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) and a jamming Electronic Steering Column Lock (ESCL)—the in Delhi has finally intervened, holding the manufacturer accountable for what it termed "."
The Road to Purchased in for over Rs. 18 lakh, the vehicle was heralded as a state-of-the-art machine. However, the complainant’s experience was marred by recurrent technical failures. The situation reached a breaking point on , when the vehicle—despite a recent service—displayed an "ESCL Fault."
Following the manufacturer’s telephonic guidance to drive the vehicle to the nearest service centre, Jindal’s car suffered an accident when the steering wheel jammed mid-transit. The manufacturer’s subsequent failure to provide timely support or a loaner vehicle, following the abandonment of the family, became the focal point of the legal battle.
The Arguments: Manufacturer vs. Consumer The manufacturer, , maintained that it had no knowledge of the steering incident and argued that the complainant had never permitted a "thorough examination" of the vehicle. However, the Commission found this claim dubious. Evidence showed that while the service centre had sought insurance processing, they never requested formal permission for a technical investigation to diagnose the root cause of the system failures.
, the dealer in this matter, successfully distanced itself from the claim. The Commission accepted that the dealer’s primary role was point-of-sale, and manufacturing liabilities rested exclusively with the principal manufacturer.
Key Observations from the Bench The Commission’s order stands as a stern reminder of the obligation of manufacturers toward safety, particularly regarding electronic systems. President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Member Ashwani Kumar Mehta delivered a sharp critique of the process:
-
On Technical Responsibility:
"These defects point towards instrumental and software failure in the electronic system of the vehicle in question. Mechanical and electronic failures cannot be attributed to driving style of the driver of vehicle."
-
On Manufacturer Negligence:
"The OP-1 has failed not only in addressing the defects in the vehicle in question... but has also failed to honour the and services to the Complainant when required."
-
On the Failure of Inspection:
"Had OP-1 examined the car to ascertain the reason for malfunctioning of the TMPS and/ or ESCL faults, the OP-1 would have been in a better position to point out the exact cause for the accident."
The Verdict: A Significant Precedent In a decisive move, the Commission ordered MG Motors to refund the full purchase price of Rs. 18,23,228, along with interest and an additional Rs. 4,00,000 for compensation and costs.
Because the car has remained unrepaired in the dealer's workshop for nearly three years, the Commission deemed it beyond the point of standard repair, effectively forcing a total buy-back. This case sets a crucial precedent for in India: companies cannot hide behind "lack of expert reports" when they themselves have neglected to perform the necessary technical due diligence on reported failures under . For owners of tech-heavy vehicles, this judgment offers a path to justice when "smart" features become life-threatening liabilities.
