Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 17
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I (NORTH DISTRICT) [GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI]
Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, J
Anshul Jindal – Appellant
Versus
MG Motors India Pvt Ltd – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No.: DC/80/RBT/CC/54/2024 | DCDRC-NW Consumer Complaint No.: 394/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
Electronic and software failures in a vehicle, such as TPMS and ESCL faults, are indicative of manufacturing defects and cannot be attributed to driving style, especially when the manufacturer fails to examine the vehicle despite having possession of it.
Headnote:The complainant purchased a vehicle which subsequently developed defects in the Tyre Pressure Monitoring Sensor (TPMS) and the Electronic Steering Column Lock (ESCL). Despite the vehicle being under warranty and covered by Road Side Assistance, the manufacturer failed to provide free repairs for the TPMS and advised the complainant to drive the vehicle despite an ESCL fault, leading to a steering jam and an accident. The court found that the manufacturer failed to examine the vehicle despite it being in their possession for nearly three years. The primary issue was whether the electronic and software failures constituted a manufacturing defect and whether the manufacturer's conduct amounted to a deficiency in service. The court reasoned that mechanical and electronic failures cannot be attributed to the driving style of the user and that the manufacturer's failure to honor warranty and RSA plans, coupled with the failure to examine the vehicle, established both a manufacturing defect and a deficiency in service. OP-1 is directed to refund the purchase value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 18,23,228/- to the Complainant along with an interest @ 7% PA since the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 26.07.2023 and pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of manufacturing defects in vehicle sensors and steering locks leading to accidents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of expert reports versus manufacturer's duty to examine. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. electronic and software failures are inherent manufacturing defects not caused by driving style. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. liability for deficiency in service resulting in full refund and compensation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
ORDER
1. The Complainant herein is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration number DL 11 CD 4839 (model MG Motor ZS Astro VTI-Tech CVT Sharp) which was manufactured by M/s MG Motors India Pvt Ltd. (OP-1 herein). The said vehicle was purchased from M/s MG Motor Gitansh Motors Pvt Ltd. (OP-2 herein) on 26.10.2022 for a sum of Rs. 18,23,228/-. The said vehicle developed certain defects. More specifically, when the Complainant was driving the car from Delhi towards Dehradoon on the highway on 05.05.2023, one of the tyres got punctured but the Tyre Pressure Monitoring Sensor (TPMS) did not work and did not show the indication of low tyre pressure on the screen panel of the car. When the car was taken to the service centre at Delhi, it was found that the out of four TPMS, three TPMS were defective and not working. The defective TMPS were changed by the OPs after charging a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from Complainant despite the fact that the car was under warranty.
2. The Complainant further alleges that the car was serviced by the OPs on 03.06.2023 before he planned to take the car on a long trip to Uttarakhand. The Complainant drove the car to Gangotri Dham in Uttarakhand on 04.06.2023 and parked the car in the night somewhere in Gangotri Dham. The next morning on 05.06.2023, when the Complainant attempted to start the car, it did not start and the car display monitor displayed “ESCL (Electronic Steering Column Lock) Fault”. The said fault indicates a failure in the anti-theft steering lock mechanism, which often prevents the car from starting. The Complainant made a call to the customer care of OP-1, which directed the Complainant to the Service Centre of OP-1 at Dehradoon. The customer care executive, as the Complainant alleges, suggested some on-call instructions which got the car started. The Complainant, also states that on the instruction of the Customer Care Executive, he drove the car towards the service centre of OP-1 at Dehradoon. It is also the case of the Complainant that the steering of the car got jammed on the route and the car met with an accident. Once the accident was reported to the OP-1 and assistance was sought from them, OP-1 took more than 10 hours to send its technician to the accident site and took the car to the service centre of the OP-1 at Dehradoon. The car is still lying at the said service centre of OP-1 at Dehradoon.
3. The Complainant also alleges that when the technician visited the accident site to pick up the accidental car, he requested for a loaner car. The technician demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the loaner car, which Complainant did not pay. As a result, the technician did not provide any loaner car to the Complainant and Complainant was left stranded at the accidental site with his accompanying family members including minor children.
4. It is also the case of the Complainant that a legal notice was sent by his Advocate to the OPs on 21.06.2023, which remained unanswered. He, thereafter, filed this complaint seeking following relief:
“PRAYER: It is, therefore, prayed to this Hon'ble Commission may kindly be direct the opposite party:
1. Direct the opposite party no. 1 to take back the manufacturing defective car and release the purchasing amount of Rs. 18,23,228 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till the date of realization
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs20,00,000/-(Twenty Lakhs) from the opposite party causing a lot of physical and men
