Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders Ford India, Dealer To Pay ₹4 Lakh For Repeated Vehicle Issues Despite No Proven Manufacturing Defect

February 20, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh has held that repeated mechanical issues faced by a consumer with a newly purchased vehicle and the inconvenience caused by repeated repairs can amount to deficiency in service, even when a manufacturing defect is not conclusively established.

A Bench comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma partly allowed a consumer complaint filed by Munir Kaushal against Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorised dealer Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., directing them to jointly pay ₹4 lakh as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

Background of the Dispute

According to the complaint, Munir Kaushal purchased a Ford Endeavour 3.2L Diesel Titanium+ 4×4 Automatic from Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh, on 11 April 2019 for ₹32,97,000. The vehicle was delivered on 26 April 2019 and financed through a loan from HDB Financial Services Limited. In addition, the complainant paid ₹98,075 for insurance and ₹92,007 for registration of the vehicle with the Registering and Licensing Authority at Shimla.

The complainant alleged that within three to four months of purchase, the vehicle started experiencing electrical issues, particularly repeated battery drainage which caused frequent starting problems. Despite several attempts by the authorised service centre to rectify the issue, including jump-starting and replacing the battery multiple times, the problem allegedly continued.

He further stated that the vehicle was taken to the workshop on several occasions for inspection. During these visits, the service staff allegedly dismantled various components of the vehicle, including the back light, boot cover, dashboard and infotainment system, in an attempt to identify the cause of the defect. However, the problem reportedly remained unresolved.

The complainant also claimed that he had repeatedly raised the issue through emails and had to rely on taxi services whenever the vehicle remained at the service centre for repairs. According to him, the battery was replaced six to seven times and several electronic components, including the SYNC/APIM module, Front Control Interface Module (FCIM), Panel Fuse Junction and Front Control Display Interface Module (FCDIM), were also replaced, yet the issue persisted.

On this basis, he sought refund of the vehicle’s price along with insurance and registration charges, besides compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

Stand of the Manufacturer and Dealer

Ford India Pvt. Ltd. denied the allegations of manufacturing defect, contending that the complainant had not produced any expert evidence or technical material to establish that the battery drainage problem resulted from a manufacturing fault.

The manufacturer submitted that each complaint raised by the consumer was duly inspected and repaired by the authorised dealership. It further stated that during a subsequent inspection, a data logger system was installed to scientifically determine the cause of battery drainage. Observational tests reportedly revealed fungus formation on the circuit board connected to the battery system, which was identified as the probable cause of the starting problem.

Ford India also argued that the vehicle had run approximately 15,000 kilometres, indicating that it remained in regular use and did not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defect.

Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., the authorised dealer, also denied liability. It stated that the first complaint regarding starting issues was raised during the vehicle’s second scheduled service in January 2020 and that the vehicle was inspected in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines. The dealer maintained that the battery and other parameters were found satisfactory and that any components replaced were done as precautionary or goodwill measures.

Commission’s Findings

After examining the evidence and hearing the parties, the Commission observed that allegations of manufacturing defect must be supported by technical or expert evidence. In the present case, the complainant had not produced any independent automobile inspection report or expert opinion to establish the existence of a manufacturing defect.

The Commission noted that mere replacement of parts during the warranty period does not automatically establish that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect.

However, the Commission also observed that the complainant had repeatedly taken the vehicle to the service centre and that several components had been replaced during the warranty period. The repeated recurrence of starting issues and multiple visits to the workshop caused inconvenience, hardship and mental harassment to the consumer.

Order of the Commission

The Commission held that although refund or replacement of the vehicle could not be granted in the absence of proof of manufacturing defect, the circumstances indicated deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed and Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd. were directed to jointly pay ₹4,00,000 as lump-sum compensation to the complainant for harassment and litigation expenses within 45 days.

The Commission further directed that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until realization.

Case Title: Munir Kaushal v. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/294/2021
Decision Date: 20 February 2026
Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member)