NEW DELHI: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ordered Mahindra and its dealer to replace the engine of a customer’s nearly-new Mahindra Marazzo free of cost and pay him Rs 1 lakh in compensation, after finding their claim about bad fuel causing the damage was not true.What was the issueAs per the complaint, Girish Tiwari of Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, bought a Mahindra Marazzo in February 2020. The car ran fine until September 2021, when it started emitting black smoke during a trip to Bhopal, about 22 days after its third servicing.The dealer’s service centre replaced the turbo system, but the problem still remained. In October 2021, the dealer said the engine had been damaged by adulterated fuel, based on a lab test, and asked the complainant to pay Rs 1,63,593 for repairs, after adjusting an Rs 88,950 as goodwill discount offered by the manufacturer.The complainant refused to pay and said the lab report looked fishy — the dealer’s letter blaming bad fuel was dated October 21, 2021, but the actual report wasn’t even ready until November 8, and wasn’t issued until November 16 — weeks after the dealer had already pointed out the fuel problem.The district commission dismissed his complaint, reasoning the fuel may have been adulterated at the pump during Covid, and that this wasn’t a manufacturing defect. later, when the matter reached state commission, it upheld this on appeal, noting the complainant hadn’t filed a counter-report to the lab test.Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the national consumer court.What did the commission sayA bench comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and member Bharatkumar Pandya said the dates in the report simply didn’t add up with the dealer’s claims. When asked to explain the mismatch, lawyers for both the manufacturer and the dealer had no answer, and the bench found no satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies in their report.“We fail to understand that when the test report was not available on 21.10.2021, then how did the Dealer come to know of the Chlorine content in the analysis of the test report which was finally issued on 16.11.2021. The report with this heavy doubt, renders its contents highly improbable,” the bench noted.The commission also found no proof that the fuel sample was collected with the complainant’s knowledge. It said the dealer had done all this on its own, without involving him, so there was no solid evidence to hold him responsible for using adulterated fuel.“Neither the manufacturer nor the dealer got it probed except for relying on the fuel test report referred to above and putting the blame on owner. This was a clear deficiency in service on their part by relying on improbable evidence,” the commission added.It further added that the discount offer was “no suitable compensation or solace” for a vehicle “almost brand new” that had run only 18-19 months.The commission then noted that neither the district commission nor the state commission had properly looked into the test report, which meant their earlier orders were seriously flawed.The NCDRC set aside the lower orders, directing the manufacturer to replace the engine free of cost, and the dealer to complete all other repairs free of charge and return the car within two months. Both must jointly pay the complainant Rs 1 lakh as compensation. If not complied with, they must jointly refund the full purchase price, registration, and insurance costs, with 6 per cent annual interest from the date of filing.
