NEW DELHI: The Hyderabad district consumer commission has directed Tata Select Motors to take back a Tata Harrier EV and refund its price after deducting 10 percent depreciation, after finding that the vehicle repeatedly developed smart-key and central-locking problems despite repairs. The commission also awarded Rs 50,000 compensation and Rs 15,000 costs to the buyer, but declined to award the punitive damages sought. The order was passed on September 7, 2026.Why did the buyer approach the consumer commission?According to the commission order, M/s Refrigeration Equipment and Solutions, a partnership firm represented by partner Pawan Bagrecha, purchased a Tata Harrier EV Empowered + 75 APC from Tata Select Motors on August 1, 2025, for Rs 27.98 lakh. The vehicle was partly financed through a loan.Within days of delivery, the complainant alleged that the car repeatedly failed to start and developed problems with smart-key connectivity and central locking. The complaint said the issue occurred four times within a month and the vehicle had stopped midway on multiple occasions.The dealer allegedly attributed the initial problem to a software glitch. The complainant later sought replacement of the vehicle, alleging that the problems continued despite repeated complaints and repairs. The complainant had sought a refund of Rs 29,29,395, along with Rs 10 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment and a further Rs 10 lakh as punitive damages to penalise the dealer for alleged gross negligence and unfair trade practices.The dealer denied deficiency in service and argued that no manufacturing defect had been proved through an expert or automobile engineer’s report. It also said it was only an authorised dealer and service centre, and that the manufacturer had not been made a party. The dealer maintained that it had responded promptly, resolved the software issue through an update and replaced the lock under warranty.What did the commission observe?The bench of President B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and B Raji Reddy examined the communications, job cards and service history produced by both sides. The coommission found that the buyer had reported the smart-key and central-locking problems within days of purchase and that the dealer had acknowledged them.“On perusal of the record, it is evident from the reply communication dated 21st August at Ex.A6 that the complainant has reported the issue of smart key out-of-range issue and the central locking system malfunction within days of purchase of the subject vehicle and the reported complaints are acknowledged by the personnel of the opposite party. It is further evident from the communication chats between the parties at Ex.A5 & Ex.A6 that the complainant’s vehicle has stopped midway and the complainant has called the opposite party to report the issue,” the commission observed.The service history showed repeated complaints, including inability to lock or unlock the vehicle and starting problems. The commission said the dealer had not provided an explanation for the cause of the problems and the issues persisted even after repairs.“Also, there is no iota of material to show the date of delivery of the vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer. In the absence of material evidence, it cannot be said that the dealer is not liable if a defective vehicle is delivered to the customer. The question of expert evidence does not arise in the present case as the service history/job card submitted by the opposite party and the complainant establishes that the reported issues of smart key out-of-range issue and the central locking system malfunction persist even after filing the consumer complaint and the vehicle of the complainant has stopped mid-way,” the commission said.It held that the evidence established that the reported problems persisted and answered the issue of deficiency in service in favour of the complainant.The commission said the dealer, which had executed the sale, was liable to refund the vehicle’s price after deducting 10 percent depreciation. It said the buyer was also entitled to reasonable compensation because the vehicle had been purchased through a loan.“Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the vehicle by taking loan. Hence, the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation and costs for the mental agony and financial hardship suffered by him,” the commission noted.The commission observed that awarding compensation as high as the Rs 10 lakh sought would result in inequity, noting that just compensation is meant to be fair and equitable and “not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.” It awarded Rs 50,000 compensation and Rs 15,000 costs, and did not award any punitive damages.The commission directed the dealer to refund the amount after deducting 10 percent depreciation from Rs 26,64,761.90, against return of the vehicle. The order is to be complied with within 45 days. In case of default, the refund amount will carry 9 percent annual interest from the date of the order until payment.
About the Author
