The , has directed and its authorized dealer, , to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to a consumer over persistent concerns regarding windshield glare and dashboard reflections in a Kia Seltos GTX Plus. The ruling, delivered by President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal, identified the manufacturers' dismissive handling of the customer's safety concerns as a form of under the , while explicitly clarifying that the forum would not issue a finding regarding the vehicle’s fundamental design or technical engineering.
The complainant, Pradeep Kumar Chhabra, an experienced engineer, purchased the vehicle in . Over the course of the following six months, he reported that severe dashboard reflections obstructed his visibility, creating a continuous hazard during both day and night driving. Despite his extensive driving history, which spans decades and various vehicle models, Chhabra contended that the Seltos exhibited unique optical phenomena that effectively hindered his ability to maintain safe situational awareness. He argued that these reflections were not merely a minor inconvenience but a fundamental safety risk, urging the manufacturer to address what he characterized as a design-induced defect.
Upon reporting the issue, the complainant faced a repetitive cycle of internal inspections and rejections. Kia India maintained that the vehicle was fully compliant with all statutory requirements, including certification by the and the . The company argued that the dashboard-windshield interaction was a "natural phenomenon" influenced by variable lighting and personal perception, rather than a . Following a joint inspection conducted in , which included representatives from the manufacturer and technical specialists, the company reiterated that no abnormality was observed and the vehicle met all regulatory quality benchmarks.
The Commission observed that while the manufacturer claimed the phenomenon was natural, the handling of the complaint reflected a lack of meaningful consumer engagement. In its order, the Commission highlighted that the practice of dismissing valid consumer concerns as merely subjective perception, without offering substantive solutions or acknowledging the frustration caused, fell short of professional service standards. The Commission remarked,
"The Commission cannot give any finding on the design of the car or glaze in the car,"
opting instead to focus on the
in how the manufacturer addressed the complainant’s specific grievances and the resulting
.
Addressing Consumer Grievances
The proceedings before the District Commission underscored the divide between technical regulatory compliance and the practical experience of the end user. During the hearings, the Commission examined technical literature, including a study from the regarding "Daytime Veiling Luminance," which acknowledges that reflected light from windshields can significantly affect visibility. Furthermore, it was noted that the manufacturer provides a genuine dashboard accessory to reduce glare in certain international markets, a fact that the Commission considered while assessing the validity of the complainant's distress.
The argument presented by the manufacturer—that the consumer failed to provide independent expert analysis or scientific laboratory reports—was countered by the complainant’s reliance on his personal expertise as an engineer and the documentation of his attempts to seek redress through official channels. The Commission found that the manufacturer’s stance, which treated the complaint as speculative and despite the clear visual frustration experienced by the owner, contributed to an unfair trade environment.
The Regulatory Landscape and Safety Standards
A central point of contention was whether the dashboard-windshield interface violated existing safety standards. Evidence presented by the Bureau of Indian Standards indicated that current regulations, specifically , do not specify reflection-control requirements for laminated windshields. The Commission noted that because the vehicle design was certified through standard homologation processes, it was constrained from declaring the car "defective" under the strict legal definitions of manufacturing flaws.
However, the Commission distinguished between a formal finding of a and the existence of an . By failing to acknowledge the severity of the visibility obstruction or proactively assist the owner in mitigating the issue, the manufacturer failed to meet the expectations of reasonable service. The judgment emphasizes that even when a product technically satisfies established legal standards, manufacturers are not insulated from accountability if their post-sale conduct exacerbates consumer harm.
The Commission ordered the opposite parties to pay the ₹5 lakh compensation within two months from the date of the order. In the event of non-compliance, the amount will carry an interest rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date the complaint was initially filed. This directive serves as a reminder to manufacturers regarding the importance of transparency and responsive customer service when consumers report potential safety concerns, even when those concerns fall within existing regulatory gray areas.
As the matter now stands, the complainant has secured a significant award for the and harassment endured throughout the long-drawn-out dispute. The case highlights a shift in how consumer forums perceive the "reasonableness" of manufacturer responses, moving beyond mere adherence to government safety manuals toward an expectation of holistic consumer care and honest engagement with reported usage-related issues. The file has been consigned to the record room, with the order set to be uploaded to the commission’s public portal to ensure transparency in its judicial findings. The outcome effectively concludes the immediate dispute, placing the onus on the automotive sector to prioritize occupant comfort and safety in their future design and service strategies.
dashboard reflections - consumer harassment
