The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Hyderabad recently ordered Tata Motors to refund ₹16.95 lakh to a person for selling him a defective electric car.
A Coram of President Vakkanti Narasimha Rao, Members D Sreedevi and V Janardhan Reddy found that the car, a Tata Nexon electric vehicle (EV), sold to the complainant had a manufacturing defect which led to the car catching fire while running, leading to an accident.
Pertinently, it noted that the State Fire Service Department had stated the cause behind the car having caught fire was due to its “Electric origin”.
Thus, it found that there was a manufacturing defect in the car and held Tata Motors liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Hence, it ordered Tata Motors to refund of ₹16,95,000 (cost of the car) with 9% interest to the complainant, one Jonathan Brainard, from the date of filing the complaint.
It also ordered payment of ₹2,50,000 for mental agony, physical trauma, and expenses related to a motorcyclist’s (third-person) injuries caused due to the crash.
Further, the forum also directed the company to pay ₹10,000 towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.
By way of background, Brainard had purchased a Tata Nexon EV in May 2022 for ₹16.95 lakh from an authorized dealer of Tata Motors after having assurance of safety, convenience, comfort and reliability features as advertised by the manufacturer.
The advertised features also included a 5-star crash rating in the Global New Car Assessment Programme (Global NCAP).
The complaint stated that following the purchase, Brainard faced issues since the car would stop running on an 18% charge in the battery and would refuse to engage the normal drive mode.
Due to this, he handed the vehicle to an authorized Tata Motors service center where, on a mechanical investigation, it was found that the HV (High Voltage) battery pack of the car had depleted and needed to be replaced.
Further, Brainard stated that after a period of one month, the service center replaced the HV battery pack with a refurbished unit and not a new one, despite the car having been in a warranty period.
On June 1, 2023, while driving at a low speed of 38.36 kmph, Brainard heard a loud explosion from under the car due to which the car lost control.
In panic, he tried to steer the car but ended up hitting a motorcyclist on the road and car itself rammed into a tree.
He came out of the car in a state of shock and checked what had caused the fire. He found that the tires of the car were intact.
Brainard then noticed that a fire was quickly spreading in the car. In an attempt to retrieve his valuable from the car he tried to open the back door but was unable to unlock any of the doors except the driver’s door. He even stated that the dashboard unlock button had become unresponsive.
As the fire intensified, he smashed the rear boot window with the help of pedestrians to retrieve his laptop and other valuables. He stated that it was fortunate that his baby boy and other family members had not been in the car as they would have been locked inside the burning car.
Brainard then filed a complaint in the District Commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices by Tata Motors. He claimed refund and compensation for the loss suffered by him.
Tata Motors countered saying that no manufacturing defects were proven and that the fire may have been caused by external factors, such as the motorbike collision or low-voltage wiring issues.
The District Commission found that the evidence clearly established that the car sold to Brainard was defective and the fire had started from the engine of the car.
"But fire accident occurred suddenly and the State Fire Service Department stated the cause of the fire is “Electric origin”. The videos and phots submitted by the complainant proved that the motorcycle was not at all on fire while the car was burning. The photos and videos clearly establish that the fire started from the engine of the car only," the forum said.
Thus, it held Tata Motors liable to refund the cost of the car and also pay compensation for the losses suffered by Brainard.
Advocate Ranjan Matthew appeared for Brainard.
M/s MVR Suresh & Associates represented Tata Motors Ltd. and Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Ltd.
Advocate M Ravi Kiran Reddy represented M/s Malik Cars Pvt. Ltd, the dealer of Tata from where the car was purchased.
[Read Order]