The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an automobile dealership and its workshop to pay Rs 1.5 lakh in compensation and costs for deficient after-sales service on a Rs 53.72 lakh luxury SUV, while turning down the owner’s demand for a complete vehicle replacement or refund.
In an order passed on September 3, a bench comprising judicial member Rajesh Guha Ray and member Santanu Saha held Lexus Motors Limited and Lexus Motors Limited (Workshop) jointly and severally liable for failing to properly rectify an audio defect reported shortly after delivery. The bench awarded Rs 1 lakh to the vehicle’s owner, Zeniak Innovation India Limited, for service deficiency alongside Rs 50,000 toward litigation expenses. Both opposite parties must deposit the amount within 45 days, failing which the Rs 1.5 lakh sum will attract simple interest at 9 per cent per annum until realization.
Distinction Between Component Defect And Systemic Vehicle Flaw
While penalising the dealership for substandard after-sales care, the commission rejected the complainant’s wider claims seeking a replacement vehicle, a full refund, and Rs 8,21,809 in damages. The commission observed that the evidence failed to prove an inherent or systemic manufacturing defect affecting the entire vehicle.
The bench noted that the case record lacked an independent automotive engineer’s report, diagnostic scans, comparative audio testing, laboratory findings, or any inspection commissioned by the court. An additional claim regarding a malfunctioning front door was similarly unsupported by job cards, inspection records, photographic evidence, or technical opinions.
Drawing a clear legal line between an isolated faulty part and a systemic vehicular defect, the bench reasoned that although the replacement of audio components under warranty confirmed the existence of a part defect at the time, it did not warrant scrapping or replacing the entire luxury vehicle.
Chronology Of The Dispute
The vehicle had been purchased on March 31, 2019, for the personal use of the company’s director and was delivered on August 5, 2019. Issues emerged almost immediately, with the buyer lodging written complaints via email on August 8, 2019, citing improper door closure and sound system failures.
The SUV was brought to the workshop for repairs on August 19, 2019, and the complainant served a formal legal notice on September 16, 2019. The company eventually took redelivery of the vehicle on November 26, 2019. However, the recorded delivery feedback noted that the front-left speaker continued to produce an irregular sound without interruption—a detail that became pivotal in establishing the dealer’s after-sales deficiency before the commission.
Legal Arguments And Final Directives
During the hearings, advocates Sagnik Sen Roy and Dipyaman Sinha, appearing for Zeniak Innovation India Limited, contended that multiple workshop visits and repair attempts failed to resolve the vehicle’s issues, justifying a refund or replacement.
Advocate A K Biswas, representing the dealership and its service facility, contested the claim of a manufacturing defect. The dealer acknowledged the audio grievance but maintained that the necessary components had been replaced under warranty free of cost, rendering the SUV road-ready.
The commission held that customers purchasing high-end vehicles are entitled to skilled diagnosis, transparent communication, and genuine warranty support. It ruled that leaving an admitted sound system defect unresolved without objective diagnostic verification amounted to a deficiency in service. In addition to the monetary compensation, the commission granted the complainant one final opportunity to have the audio system inspected and addressed.
