The commission observed that the complainant was “deceived” by the inaccurate performance claim, which was a key factor influencing the purchase of the vehicle priced at ₹1.65 crore.The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) India to refund ₹1.65 crore to a Roorkee-based firm after its luxury SUV Defender 110 X P400 was found to have inherent manufacturing defects and unauthorised structural alterations.
According to PTI, the bench comprising President Kumkum Rani and member B S Manral ruled that the manufacturer had engaged in “unfair trade practice” and showed “deficiency” in service by selling a vehicle that failed to meet advertised performance benchmarks.
The complaint was filed by M/s Eapro Global Limited, which purchased the Defender 110 X P400 in October 2022 for its director Jagdeep Chauhan.
The reason behind it
According to the complainant’s counsel advocate Vaibhav Jain, the SUV failed to deliver the promised acceleration performance. While the company claimed the model could accelerate from 0-100 kmph in 6.1 seconds, the complainant submitted evidence that the vehicle consistently took over 7.1 seconds to reach the same speed.
The commission observed that the complainant was “deceived” by the inaccurate performance claim, which was a key factor influencing the purchase of the vehicle priced at ₹1.65 crore.
The complainant also alleged that the vehicle did not have the “Fuel Filler Flap – Central Locking” feature, despite it being listed as part of standard specifications. Jain argued that the absence of the locking mechanism posed a serious safety and security risk, allowing unauthorised access to the fuel tank.
In a key observation, the commission noted that the vehicle’s chassis had been subjected to “major surgery” by the authorised service centre. The order stated that to address a persistent screeching sound, the chassis was cut, welded and riveted without the owner’s consent.
The bench held that such structural alterations to the chassis, which forms the load-bearing foundation of the vehicle, impacted its safety and utility.
JLR India defended the performance variation by stating that the advertised acceleration figures were achieved under controlled test conditions. It also attributed the missing fuel lock feature to a global shortage of automobile chips. However, the commission rejected these arguments, noting that the buyer was not informed of such limitations at the time of purchase.
The commission also dismissed JLR’s claim that it had no direct contractual relationship with the buyer, stating that a manufacturer cannot avoid liability for inherent defects through dealer agreements.
In its order, the commission directed JLR India to refund ₹1,65,61,234 along with 7 per cent annual interest from March 27, 2024, the date the complaint was admitted. The company was also ordered to pay ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses.
The dealer, Shiva Motocorp, was exonerated from liability as the defects were held to be inherent in the manufacturing process.
The complainant has been directed to return the vehicle to the manufacturer within 15 days.
