Chhattisgarh State Commission Sets Aside Order Against Mahindra in Truck Engine Dispute

2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 19

March 03, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur has allowed two appeals filed by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and a vehicle dealer, setting aside an earlier order that had granted relief to a truck owner over alleged defects in his vehicle.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal, a resident of Bhanupratappur in Kanker district, who had purchased a 12-wheel Mahindra truck (registration CG-19 BF-3001) on 13 January 2017 for his livelihood. Jaiswal claimed that the vehicle developed serious engine problems while it was still under warranty and that the manufacturer and dealer failed to repair it despite repeated requests.

According to the complaint, the truck broke down on 16 November 2019 while returning from Raipur after unloading iron ore. The vehicle was subsequently taken to an authorized workshop as directed by the manufacturer. Engineers inspected the truck and informed the owner that the engine had seized and would require repairs costing approximately ₹2.42 lakh, with an advance payment of ₹1 lakh. Jaiswal contended that the vehicle had run only about 14,000 kilometres at that time and was covered under warranty, yet the company refused to repair it free of cost. He alleged deficiency in service and sought compensation before the District Consumer Commission.

In February 2025, the District Consumer Commission in North Bastar Kanker partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to repair the vehicle with a new engine and pay compensation and litigation costs. Both Mahindra & Mahindra and the dealer subsequently challenged the order before the State Commission.

During the appeal proceedings, the manufacturer argued that the engine failure was not due to any manufacturing defect but was caused by dust entering the engine, which led to excessive oil consumption and eventual engine seizure. According to the service complaint report placed on record, the product support team had rejected the claim under warranty on the ground that dust entry was responsible for the failure. The company also pointed out that the truck had not undergone all scheduled servicing, indicating lack of proper maintenance by the owner.

The appellants further contended that the complaint was not maintainable as it had been filed nearly seven years after the vehicle was purchased, beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. They also highlighted that a similar complaint regarding the same vehicle defect had earlier been filed before another District Consumer Commission and had already been dismissed in January 2024.

After examining the records and submissions, the State Commission found merit in the appeals. It observed that the service complaint report indicated that dust entering the engine had caused the failure and that the complainant had not produced any expert evidence to rebut this finding. The Commission also noted that the complainant had failed to demonstrate that the vehicle had been properly serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s schedule.

The bench further held that the complaint filed before the District Consumer Commission in Kanker was barred by limitation and was also not maintainable since a similar complaint concerning the same vehicle defect had previously been dismissed by another District Commission.

In light of these findings, the State Commission concluded that the complainant had failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer or dealer. Consequently, both appeals were allowed and the District Commission’s order dated 20 February 2025 was set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the consumer complaint.

The order was pronounced on 3 March 2026 by a bench comprising Justice Gautam Chourdiya (President) and Pramod Kumar Verma (Member).

Case Reference : Appeal Nos. SC/22/FA/174/2025 & SC/22/FA/207/2025 – Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. and Manager, Ralas Wheels vs. Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal & Ors.