"We argued problem was in engine," says lawyer after Raipur Consumer Commission directs car replacement over E20 fuel compatibility
Raipur, July 16
The Raipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a car manufacturer to replace a complainant's vehicle with a new one after it suffered severe engine damage allegedly due to the use of E20 fuel. Complainant's lawyer Advocate PK Nishad said that they highlighted a fault in the engine amid recurring damage.
According to the order, if the manufacturer fails to provide a new replacement vehicle, it must refund the full purchase price of the car amounting to Rs 20.50 lakh. The car manufacturer had argued that it was bad quality petrol which led to the damage
Advocate PK Nishad told ANI, "After running for 21,000 kilometres, the car faced problems. The dashboard showed that there is a problem with the engine. The company said that it was due to bad-quality petrol. The company filled the tank with a different petrol, but it again had problems after 60 kilometres. We presented this before the court and submitted the documents, including a letter to the company and the petrol pump. The court has directed the car manufacturer to replace a complainant's vehicle with a brand-new one or pay Rs 20.50 lakh compensation."
The Commission also directed the opposite parties to jointly pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.
According to Advocate Nishad, the lawyer representing the car manufacturer had stated that the car was compatible with 10 per cent ethanol blending in fuel and not for the E20 petrol. The Consumer Commission has directed that the replaced car should be compatible with the E20 fuel.
"Their advocate argued that the engine had the presence of water. So we stated that it was their responsibility to repair the vehicle as it was under warranty. It also came up that the car was manufactured for 10 per cent ethanol blending in fuel, but 20 per cent is being blended. We argued that the problem was in the engine, and the court made its decision, ordering the replacement of the car. The car was 17 months old. The court has said that the replaced car should be able to function with E20 fuel," Advocate Nishad said.
It is being seen as a significant consumer rights ruling. The Commission held both the vehicle manufacturer and the dealer liable for deficiency in service, observing that the vehicle's engine was not compatible with E20 petrol.
The Commission has mandated compliance with the order within 45 days, failing which an annual interest rate of 7 per cent will be levied on the delayed amount.
The E20 controversy centres on the government's nationwide rollout of petrol blended with 20 per cent ethanol. While intended to reduce crude oil imports and emissions, the policy has sparked backlash due to reported mileage drops, potential engine damage in older vehicles, and the lack of consumer choice at fuel pumps.
— ANI
Reader Comments
As an engineer working in automotive R&D, I can tell you that ethanol blending reduces engine life anyway. E10 was fine but E20 in India's hot climate and with our driving conditions? Recipe for disaster. The car maker here should have been upfront about the compatibility issue. Good to see consumer courts stepping up.
But honestly, why are we rushing into E20? My old Maruti 800 vibrates like crazy on E10 itself. Petrol prices are sky-high and now this ethanol nonsense is damaging engines. Government wants to save foreign exchange but common man is paying the price. At least the commission has said the replacement car must be E20 compatible - that sets a precedent for all manufacturers.
So the car was only 17 months old and the company refused to honour warranty? Then blamed bad petrol? And when they themselves filled different petrol, the problem returned in 60km? 🤦♀️ Unbelievable how some companies try to wash their hands off responsibility. Thank god for consumer courts. This will make other manufacturers think twice before selling E20-incompatible cars.
Interesting case. On one hand, the consumer had every right to expect his car to run on whatever fuel is available at the pump. On the other hand, if the government is forcing E20 without proper transition period, shouldn't they also be held partly responsible? The blame here should be shared between the manufacturer (for not making E20-compatible engines) and the government (for pushing fuel without proper testing).
My cousin faced similar issue
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.