Maruti Suzuki India announced on Thursday that it will challenge the Raipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order directing the company to replace a customer's vehicle with a new E20-compatible model. According to the company's statement, the car in question was an E20-compatible vehicle, fully equipped to handle E20 fuel and disclosed as such in the owner's manual. Maruti Suzuki asserted that there is evidence of contamination in the fuel collected from the customer's vehicle, with several other relevant facts not reflected in the court order. The company stated it will take necessary steps to challenge the impugned order before appropriate higher forum in accordance with law, while remaining fully committed to quality, safety and customer satisfaction through robust engineering, processes and systems.
In India's first known E20 fuel consumer court case, the Raipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional Bench) has ordered Maruti Suzuki to replace a consumer's vehicle following allegations of E20 petrol damage. The Commission held that consumers cannot be expected to avoid using E20 petrol when it has become the commonly available fuel at petrol pumps. The ruling represents the first such consumer court decision in favor of a vehicle owner claiming E20 fuel damage, with the Commission terming this a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under India's ethanol-blending programme. According to The Indian Express, the July 14 order stemmed from a complaint by Raipur resident Dr Premraj Devta, who alleged that his 2023 Maruti Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid Zeta Plus suffered repeated engine stalling and performance problems after being fuelled with E20 petrol. The Commission noted that E20 petrol had become the commonly available fuel at petrol pumps, leaving consumers with little practical alternative and motorists could not reasonably be expected to avoid the fuel if other options were unavailable.
The vehicle owner, Dr Premraj Devta, claimed that his 2023 Maruti Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid Zeta Plus began experiencing recurring engine problems after refueling with E20 petrol. According to the Commission's order, the vehicle developed a fault after running about 21,913 km, when its dashboard flashed an engine warning and the car stalled. The SUV was bought in June 2024, though it had been manufactured in January 2023, and within five months, the vehicle reportedly started stalling repeatedly. Despite multiple fuel changes, fuel-tank cleanings and repeated visits to the dealer's workshop, the problem kept recurring within a short distance each time. The Commission noted that the car was sold as new, roughly 17 months after its manufacture date, and despite repeated repairs at the dealer's workshop, the same problems kept recurring, supporting the complainant's case that the fault was never properly fixed. The Commission cited the lack of assistance in arranging an E20-compliant car for the complainant from the manufacturer and dealership as a key factor in its ruling. The customer further claimed that he had not been informed while purchasing the vehicle that it might not be fully compatible with E20 petrol.
The Commission awarded ₹21 lakh as compensation to the vehicle owner, including ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs, both payable within 45 days. If Maruti Suzuki fails to comply with the replacement order, it must refund the full purchase price of ₹18.29 lakh, along with the Regional Transport Office (RTO) fee of ₹1.86 lakh and insurance premium of ₹34,644, totaling ₹20.50 lakh. The ruling also includes 7% annual interest on the refund amount if compliance is not achieved within the stipulated period. The complainant had initially sought ₹50 lakh, which included compensation for losses to his medical practice, but the Commission ruled that he proved his case only partially, awarding the reduced amount. According to The Indian Express, the ₹21 lakh compensation includes the car's cost of ₹18.29 lakh for the Zeta+ variant, insurance premium of ₹34,644 and RTO charges of ₹1.86 lakh. The manufacturer and dealer had argued that the vehicle was compatible with E20 and that the defects were due to routine wear, maintenance or unrelated causes, but the Commission was not convinced by that defence.
Maruti Suzuki and its dealer contested the claim, citing a lab report that alleged the fuel in the tank was contaminated, with ethanol content testing at only 6-7% despite being sold as E20. They argued there was no manufacturing defect, pointing to pre-delivery and monitored test drives that showed no issues, and said external fuel contamination fell outside the vehicle's warranty. The company maintains that the car in question was found with adulterated fuel, which it says caused the damage to the engine. The complainant had initially refused the company's offer to buy back the car at a depreciated value of ₹12 lakh, seeking a replacement or full refund instead. Maruti Suzuki is now challenging the order before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, with the company's lawyers stating that E20 fuel was not mentioned anywhere in the original complaint or arguments during the hearing. However, the owner claimed he was never told at the time of purchase that the vehicle was not fully compatible with E20 petrol. The dispute centers on whether the recurring problems were caused by contaminated fuel, as claimed by the manufacturer, or whether they point to deficiencies that warranted the consumer commission's order for replacement or refund.
