Pune: Consumer Commission Orders Hyundai, Dealer to Pay Rs 98,600 Compensation for Faulty Car and Deficient Service
Pune, 25th June 2025: In a significant ruling, the Additional District Consumer Grievance Redressal Commission, Pune, has ordered Hyundai Motors India Limited and Garve Motors Private Limited to pay a total compensation of ₹98,600 to a customer for failing to repair a car despite repeated complaints.
The Commission directed the company and the dealer to pay ₹83,600 for mental agony, inconvenience, and damages, and an additional ₹15,000 towards litigation costs.
The verdict was delivered by Commission Chairman Arun Gaikwad, along with members Pranali Sawant and Kanchan Gangadhare, in response to a complaint filed by Ajay Navnath Kamble, who had purchased a Hyundai car worth ₹20.94 lakh from Garve Motors on December 16, 2020.
Car Faced Multiple Issues Soon After Purchase
According to Kamble’s complaint, filed through advocate Sanket Yevlekar, several issues began to surface in the vehicle shortly after purchase. After driving just 500 kilometers, he brought the vehicle in for servicing and reported gear shifting issues, door noise, and a malfunctioning music system.
Despite repeated visits to the service center and continued complaints, the dealership and manufacturer allegedly failed to rectify the problems. Kamble also incurred an additional ₹40,000 expense on alternate transport during the time his car remained unusable.
“Even after using roadside assistance, the complainant had to personally take the car to the service center. Despite repeated attempts, the problems remained unresolved,” the complaint stated.
ARAI Evaluation Ordered
During the hearing, the Commission emphasized the importance of an independent technical evaluation. It directed that the vehicle be submitted to the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) to verify the condition of the car and assess whether it is truly free of defects as claimed by the respondents.
“The respondents must bear the full cost of evaluation at ARAI. If the vehicle is found to be defect-free, the onus of proving so rests with them,” the order said.
Car Not Eligible for Replacement, Says Commission
While Kamble had requested a complete vehicle replacement, the Commission clarified that such relief was not applicable in this case. The order noted that the vehicle had been in use for a considerable period since its purchase in 2020 and showed signs of extensive usage.
“Given the duration and usage of the vehicle, a full replacement is not justified,” the Commission concluded.
Implications for Auto Consumers
The case underscores growing consumer awareness and legal accountability in the auto sector, particularly in instances of post-sale service failures. It also highlights the role of independent agencies like ARAI in providing expert validation in technical disputes.
