The order cited deficiency in service, mandating replacement or ₹20.5 lakh refund along with compensation for the buyer.Amid the ongoing debate over E20 petrol, a district consumer commission in Chhattisgarh has directed Maruti Suzuki and its dealer in Raipur to replace a customer’s Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid with a new E20-compatible vehicle of the same model, in its order dated July 14.
What was the E20 fuel dispute about?
The complainant, Dr Premraj Devta, a 41-year-old kidney specialist based in Raipur, had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid Zeta Plus on June 3, 2024, for ₹18,29,000. He alleged that the vehicle developed repeated technical problems after E20 petrol became widely available, and that he was not informed at the time of purchase that the vehicle was not fully compatible with the ethanol-blended fuel, as per the court order. According to the order, the vehicle had actually been manufactured in January 2023 — nearly 17 months before it was sold to the complainant as a new car. The SUV ran fine for about 21,913 km before its dashboard flagged an “engine problem” in November 2024, after which it repeatedly broke down despite multiple visits to the dealer’s workshop, fuel tank cleanings, and part replacements. The complainant was eventually given a loaner vehicle from March 2025 onward while his own car remained parked at the dealership.
He filed the complaint before the Raipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional Bench) against two parties — the dealership, Nexa Magneto (Sky Auto Mobile), and Maruti Suzuki India Limited. Both contested the complaint through their counsel, arguing that the fault lay with contaminated or adulterated fuel — an external factor not covered under the vehicle’s warranty — and not with any manufacturing defect. Maruti also submitted lab test reports claiming the fuel used in the vehicle showed signs of poor quality.
Why did the commission order Maruti to replace the SUV?
A bench comprising President Prashant Kundu and Member Dr Anand Varghese partly allowed the complaint, holding the manufacturer and dealer guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The commission held that since the vehicle had been manufactured back in January 2023 and did not run on E20-compliant fuel, but was still sold to the complainant more than a year later without disclosing this incompatibility, repeatedly refuelling and cleaning the tank could not resolve the recurring breakdowns.
The commission directed Maruti Suzuki and the dealer to take back the vehicle and provide the complainant with a new E20-compatible car of the same model within 45 days of the order.
If the replacement is not provided within this period, the commission ordered that the opposite parties must instead pay the complainant the full value of the vehicle, which is ₹20,50,494 in total, made up of the vehicle’s price (₹18,29,000), RTO charges (₹1,86,850) and insurance premium (₹34,644).
Separately, regardless of whether the vehicle is replaced, the commission ordered payment of ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs, both within 45 days. It further directed that if this amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the opposite parties will have to pay 7 per cent annual interest on it from the date of the order until the date of actual payment.
