NEW DELHI: A luxury car purchase turned into a major consumer dispute after the Uttarakhand consumer commission ordered Jaguar Land Rover India to refund ₹1.65 crore with interest to a buyer over manufacturing defects in a Defender SUV.The case was filed by Eapro Global Limited, a Roorkee-based company, which purchased a Land Rover Defender 110 X P400 from authorised dealer Shiva Motocorp, Noida, in October 2022 for Rs 1,65,61,234.The company alleged that the vehicle’s performance was not as promised. It alleged that the advertisement claimed an acceleration of 0–100 km/h in 6.1 seconds, but the SUV took over 7.1 seconds to achieve the same.The buyer further alleged that a fuel filler flap with central locking, listed under the vehicle’s standard specifications, was missing at the time of delivery.The vehicle also developed several other issues including a persistent screeching sound from the rear left cabin, a defective tail lamp and a loosely fitted air intake. During servicing, the company alleged that repairs involved cutting, welding and riveting of the vehicle’s chassis, carried out without any written or oral consent from the buyer.Jaguar Land Rover India argued that the advertised acceleration figures were achieved under controlled test conditions and that the missing fuel flap feature was due to a global semiconductor chip shortage, with disclaimers updated on its website. It also contended there was no direct contractual relationship with the buyer since all payments were made to the dealer.What the consumer commission heldThe commission held that if the 6.1-second figure was only achievable under controlled conditions, the buyer should have been informed at the time of purchase and not a year later through a legal reply.On the missing feature, it held that “its price should have been deducted from the price quoted to the complainant, but the same was not done.”On the chassis modification, the commission found it particularly damning, noting that by cutting the chassis “its very foundation has been altered,” and this was done without the buyer’s consent.The commission dismissed the privity of contract argument, observing that “the complainant was not a party to the said agreement, hence any clause / condition contained therein can not be accepted to deny the genuine / legitimate claim of the complainant.”The bench concluded that “the subject vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defect and the complainant has been deceived / cheated by selling an underperformed vehicle in contravention of what was advertised / promised” and held the manufacturer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.The bench directed Jaguar Land Rover India to refund Rs 1.65 crore along with interest at 7 per cent per annum from 27 March 2024 — the date the complaint was admitted — till actual payment, along with Rs 50,000 in litigation expenses.
