Consumer commission asks car dealer to provide E20 supported car to Raipur doctor
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur ordered a car dealer to provide a new car and an added compensation of ₹1 lakh for
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur ordered a car dealer to provide a new car and an added compensation of ₹1 lakh for mental harassment to a city-based doctor who complained that the vehicle sold to him broke down repeatedly. Noting that the complainant’s car did not have an E20 petrol-supported engine, the Commission directed the dealership to provide a model compatible with the said fuel composition. The manufacturer, Maruti Suzuki, however, has claimed that the car was E20 compatible and said that they would challenge the order. In his appeal, Dr. Premraj Debta, a 41-year-old nephrologist, said that the engine problem with his Maruti Grand Vitara Hybrid Zeta began in November 2024, five months after he bought it from a showroom in Telibandha area. But when he took it to the showroom, he was informed that it was adulterated petrol that affected the engine. By then he had driven the car for 21,913 km. The problem arose a few more times after which Dr. Debta found that the sales manager at the dealership had sold him an old model of the car.
As matters escalated, the dealership refused a replacement or refund despite the car being under the warranty till May 2029. Instead, he was given the option to sell his car for ₹12 lakh or pay ₹5.30 lakh to replace the old parts with new ones, both of which he refused. The complainant had paid ₹18.29 lakh for the car, ₹1.86 lakh as RTO fee and ₹34,644 for insurance. In his appeal, Mr. Debta had sought ₹50 lakh – about ₹20.5 lakh as refund and the balance as damages for the hindrance caused in his work due to the breakdowns. During the hearing, the car dealer as well as the manufacturer claimed that the engine contained a white jelly like water due to which the engine had gotten affected. They said that this was an external factor and hence, not covered by the warranty given to the car. After listening to all the three parties, the Commission concluded that the car was 17-month-old, not E20 compliant and sold to the complainant as new.
“Thus, it is clear from the present complaint that the 17-month-old vehicle sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was not, in fact, an E20 petrol-supported vehicle. Consequently, according to the contention of the opposite parties, the complainant’s vehicle suffered engine damage due to E20 fuel because the petrol was contaminated. In this regard, the complainant had no control over the matter,” it said in its order on Tuesday [July 14, 2026]. The order added that instead of taking back the vehicle sold, a new vehicle of the same model with an E20 petrol-supported engine was not provided to the complainant, thus resulting in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The commission ruled that a new vehicle of the same model equipped with an E20 fuel-supported engine would be provided to the complainant within 45 days. If not within 45 days, the entire amount paid by the complainant will be returned to him, it added. In a statement issued on Thursday evening, Maruti Suzuki, claimed that the car was fully equipped to handle E20 fuel and that the Commission’s order did not reflect “several other relevant facts”.
The BriefWire