The Uttarakhand consumer commission has ordered Jaguar Land Rover India to refund ₹1.65 crore with interest to a buyer over manufacturing defects in a Defender SUV, ruling that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing flaws and that the company engaged in unfair trade practices.
Case Background
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 in Noida in October 2022 for ₹1,65,61,234. The company alleged that the vehicle's performance was not as promised, citing several issues.
Performance and Missing Features
The buyer claimed that the advertisement stated an acceleration of 0–100 km/h in 6.1 seconds, but the SUV took over 7.1 seconds to achieve the same. Additionally, a fuel filler flap with central locking, listed under the vehicle's standard specifications, was missing at the time of delivery.
Other Defects
The vehicle also developed a persistent screeching sound from the rear left cabin, a defective tail lamp, and a loosely fitted air intake. During servicing, 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's Defense
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.
Commission's Ruling
The 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 ruled that its price should have been deducted from the quoted price, but this was not done.
Chassis Modification
The commission found the chassis modification particularly damning, noting that by cutting the chassis, its very foundation was altered, and this was done without the buyer's consent.
Contractual Relationship
The commission dismissed the privity of contract argument, stating that the complainant was not a party to the agreement, so any clause or condition contained therein could not be accepted to deny the genuine claim.
Conclusion and Order
The bench concluded that the subject vehicle suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect and that the complainant was deceived by selling an underperformed vehicle in contravention of what was advertised. It held the manufacturer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The commission directed Jaguar Land Rover India to refund ₹1.65 crore along with interest at 7% per annum from 27 March 2024, the date the complaint was admitted, until actual payment, along with ₹50,000 in litigation expenses.
