Archive · 13 Sep 2026
Hyderabad Consumer Forum Orders Refund for Defective Electric SUV
A Hyderabad business bought a new electric SUV for daily travel.
Soon afterward, the SUV sometimes would not start.
Its smart key and door locks also stopped working repeatedly.
The business said the SUV was left stranded and even stopped in traffic.
The dealer said it had fixed the software and locking problems.
The dealer also argued that there was no expert proof of a manufacturing defect.
But service records showed that similar problems appeared again after several visits.
The consumer commission decided that the vehicle was defective and that the service was inadequate.
It ordered a refund and additional payments totaling about Rs 24.63 lakh.
A Hyderabad business bought a premium electric SUV for Rs 27.98 lakh on August 1, 2025.
The SUV allegedly suffered repeated starting failures, smart-key problems and central-locking malfunctions.
The complainant said the vehicle was stranded several times and stopped while being driven.
The authorised dealer denied a proven manufacturing defect and said reported problems had been repaired.
The consumer commission ordered about Rs 23.98 lakh in refund, plus compensation and costs totaling Rs 24.63 lakh.
- Who
- A Hyderabad-based business and the authorised dealer of the electric SUV; the complaint was decided by the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I.
- What
- The commission found deficiency in service and delivery of a defective vehicle, ordering a refund, compensation and litigation costs.
- When
- The SUV was purchased on August 1, 2025; service records continued through December 25, 2025, and February 23, 2026. The order was reported as being passed on September 7, with the year not specified in the articles.
- Where
- Hyderabad, Telangana.
- Why
- The vehicle allegedly continued to have starting, smart-key, central-locking and other problems despite repeated service visits.
Consumer’s case
Dealer’s response
Repeated vehicle problems
Consumer’s case
The business said the SUV repeatedly failed to start, lost smart-key recognition, suffered central-locking failures, was left stranded and stopped midway despite service visits.
Dealer’s response
The dealer said it responded whenever problems were reported, resolved the software issue through an update and addressed the locking problem by replacing a component under warranty.
Evidence of defects
Consumer’s case
The complainant relied on service histories and job cards recording recurring locking, starting, drive-mode and interior-light problems.
Dealer’s response
The dealer argued that no manufacturing defect had been established because the complainant had not submitted an expert, automobile-engineer or laboratory report.
Dealer’s responsibility
Consumer’s case
The business sought replacement or a refund from the dealer because the vehicle remained unreliable after repairs.
Dealer’s response
The dealer argued that it was only an authorised dealer and service centre and that the vehicle manufacturer had not been made a party to the complaint.
- Vehicle price
- Rs 27.98 lakh
- Purchase date
- August 1, 2025
- Refund ordered
- Approximately Rs 23.98 lakh after a 10% depreciation deduction
- Compensation
- Rs 50,000
- Litigation costs
- Rs 15,000
- Total relief
- Approximately Rs 24.63 lakh
- Commission
- Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
