The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Fiat India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and directed it to replace a defective Jeep Wrangler Rubicon or refund ₹69.49 lakh, along with additional compensation and costs, to the purchaser.
The bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member Judicial) allowed the complaint filed by the consumer who had purchased the vehicle in September 2021 for around ₹70 lakh.
The complainant alleged that the vehicle began developing problems soon after purchase, including water leakage from the roof and sides, malfunctioning air conditioning, faulty reverse camera, failure of the auto start-stop system, engine issues, and loss of throttle response. The vehicle was repeatedly taken to authorised service centres across different cities including Dehradun, Chandigarh, Delhi and Ahmedabad, but the problems persisted despite several repairs and part replacements.
It was further alleged that technicians resorted to temporary fixes, including using foam pieces to stop water leakage, and that even major components such as the engine, silencer and exhaust manifold were proposed to be replaced. According to the complainant, the car spent more time at service centres than on the road and suffered from inherent manufacturing defects.
The Commission noted that Fiat India (Opposite Party No.1) failed to file its written statement and written submissions despite opportunities, leading to closure of its right to do so. As a result, the complainant’s evidence and allegations largely remained unrebutted.
At the same time, the Commission held that Landmark Lifestyle Cars Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2) could not be held liable since it neither manufactured nor sold the vehicle. The Commission also observed that the actual dealer from whom the car was purchased had not been impleaded, resulting in misjoinder and non-joinder of parties in relation to OP-2.
Holding the manufacturer responsible for deficiency in service, the Commission directed Fiat India to replace the vehicle with a new one of the same make with insurance, registration, accessories and extended warranty, or refund ₹69,49,522 if replacement is not possible. It further ordered payment of ₹4 lakh towards repair and maintenance expenses, ₹50,000 for commuting expenses due to absence of a courtesy vehicle, ₹1 lakh for mental agony, and ₹25,000 as litigation costs.
The Commission directed that the order be complied with within two months, failing which the amount would carry 9% interest per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle until realisation.
Appearances:
Counsel for the Complainant: Swarnendu Chatterjee with Harshita Rawat
Counsel for OP-1: Kirti Garg
Counsel for OP-2: Abhinav Garg, Mihir Gujjewar & Nishant Goyal
