Holding that a consumer cannot be compelled to accept a repeatedly repaired vehicle that developed problems soon after purchase, the district consumer disputes redressal commission (DCDRC), Chandigarh, directed Krishna Automobiles and JSW MG Motor India Pvt Ltd to refund the invoice value of an MG Windsor EV purchased by a city resident, along with interest and compensation.The panel further held that the inspection report relied upon by the dealer was prepared unilaterally without the consumer’s participation and could not be treated as independent evidence. (HT File)The order was passed by the bench of president Amrinder Singh Sidhu and member BM Sharma while partly allowing a consumer complaint filed by Pukhraj Singh Bal.According to the complaint, the complainant purchased the MG Windsor EV Essence Pro on July 23, 2025. Within four days, the vehicle allegedly came to an abrupt halt while he was travelling with his family, resulting in a rear end collision. He further claimed that the same problem recurred later that day, following which the vehicle was towed to the dealer’s workshop. The complainant also alleged that while the vehicle remained at the workshop, it suffered further damage in the dealer’s custody.The dealer, Krishna Automobiles, denied the allegations of any manufacturing defect, contending that the vehicle’s advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) had automatically applied the brakes after detecting close proximity to another vehicle. It maintained that the damage resulted from an accident and that the vehicle was repaired and made roadworthy. The manufacturer, JSW MG Motor India Pvt Ltd, also denied liability, arguing that no expert evidence had been produced to establish any manufacturing defect.Rejecting the defence, the commission observed that the dealer and manufacturer failed to produce any event data recorder report, diagnostic report, software log or other technical evidence to substantiate their claim that the ADAS had functioned normally.The panel further held that the inspection report relied upon by the dealer was prepared unilaterally without the consumer’s participation and could not be treated as independent evidence.Noting that the dealer had itself admitted that the vehicle suffered further accidental damage while in its custody, the commission held that this amounted to negligence and deficiency in service.Observing that a consumer purchasing a brand new vehicle worth over ₹19 lakh is entitled to expect safe and reliable performance, the commission said, “A consumer who purchases a new vehicle cannot be compelled to accept a repeatedly repaired vehicle which has suffered multiple incidents almost immediately after delivery.”Concluding that the circumstances established deficiency in service, the opposite parties were directed to refund ₹18.49 lakh, being the invoice price of the vehicle, along with interest at 9% per annum from July 23, 2025, till realisation. It also ordered a refund of ₹57,690 spent on accessories with similar interest and awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹50,000 towards harassment and litigation expenses.The commission directed the parties to comply with the order within 45 days of receiving its certified copy.