Back
Coolant Catastrophe: Kurnool Court Slams Maruti Service Centre for Engine Meltdown
In a ruling that underscores the perils of skimping on vehicle maintenance, the has held a local Maruti Suzuki authorized service centre liable for . Government teacher Mrs. P. Masumbi won partial relief after her Maruti Vitara Brezza's engine seized due to alleged negligence in coolant checks. The bench, comprising President Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar and Member Sri N.Narayana Reddy , ordered the service centre to either repair the engine free of cost or pay Rs 1,79,623, plus Rs 1 lakh in compensation. Maruti Suzuki India Limited was let off the hook.
From Routine Service to Roadside Nightmare
Mrs. Masumbi, a 47-year-old teacher from Kurnool, had faithfully serviced her 2017 Maruti Brezza (AP21 BT 2834) at M/s Adarsha Automotives Private Limited multiple times, clocking over 1,07,000 km by mid-2025. Bills from January 2024 to August 2025 showed payments for periodic maintenance services (PMS), including Rs 6,691 on and Rs 6,869 on .
Disaster struck on near Shadnagar, when the vehicle overheated dramatically—mere 900 km after the last service. Temporary fixes at Sri Jayarama Motors cost Rs 1,574, pinning the blame on insufficient coolant. Towing set her back Rs 10,000, and she shelled out another Rs 20,000 for alternate transport amid her husband's urgent dialysis trips. The service centre's initial promise of free repairs evaporated, replaced by a Rs 1.7 lakh bill. Filed on under , her complaint sought free repairs, reimbursements, daily transport costs, Rs 1.5 lakh for mental agony, and litigation expenses.
Service Centre's Defence: Driver Error, Not Our Fault
Adarsha Automotives argued the vehicle was out of warranty, serviced per manufacturer guidelines, and coolant replacement wasn't due until 1,10,000 km—allegedly skipped by the owner. They claimed warnings were ignored, leading to seizure 51 days post-service, and accused Mrs. Masumbi of refusing paid repairs after initial agreement. Maruti Suzuki distanced itself, noting the 2017 purchase was well past the 24-month/40,000 km warranty, with no manufacturing defect claims then. Dealers, they said, operate independently.
Unravelling the Evidence: Emails, Invoices, and Contradictions
The commission dissected service records, WhatsApp messages, emails, and job cards. Key findings exposed gaps: Vague invoices lacked specifics on coolant checks, and internal emails admitted coolant replacement was mandatory at 1,00,000 km but only topped up during the service at 1,05,678 km. One email even linked overheating to this lapse, causing thermostat failure and engine damage.
Contradictions abounded—the service centre's mechanic claimed the vehicle arrived on , but messages showed custody from with "Rs 0" repair quotes. Citing , where job card tampering signaled deficiency, the court deemed Adarsha's records unreliable. sealed it: Negligence in coolant replacement was proven, not user fault.
Media echoes, like reports headlining
"Failure To Replace Coolant Led To Engine Damage"
, highlighted the case's resonance in consumer circles.
Court's Sharp Observations
"Being an authorized service centre, Opposite Party No.1 was duty-bound to carry out essential checks, particularly coolant inspection and replacement, and to maintain transparent service records. However, the service invoices reveal vague and non-specific entries..."
"The documentary evidence under Exhibit B1... clearly contradicts the version of Opposite Party No.1, thereby rendering their defence unreliable and untenable."
"These contradictory stands clearly establish ."
"The initial assurance of free repair, followed by its withdrawal without justification, constitutes and an ."
Justice Delivered: Free Fix or Pay Up
The complaint was against Adarsha: Repair the engine free and deliver roadworthy, or pay Rs 1,79,623 ; plus a consolidated Rs 1,00,000 for towing, alternate conveyance, agony, and hardship; and Rs 5,000 costs. Compliance due in 45 days, or 12% interest from . Maruti Suzuki was dismissed—no manufacturing defect link.
This precedent reinforces service centres' accountability for mandatory maintenance, potentially easing burdens for owners hit by post-service breakdowns. For Mrs. Masumbi, it's vindication—and hopefully, a drivable Brezza soon.
