Feedback

Tata Nexon EV Deemed Defective: Consumer Commission Orders Refund and Compensation

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Hyderabad, Holds Tata Motors and Dealers Liable

In a landmark ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad, ordered Tata Motors Ltd., its passenger vehicle division, and two dealers to refund ₹16,95,000 to the complainant, Mr. Jonathan Brainard, for selling a defective Tata Nexon EV and awarded additional compensation for the inconvenience and damages caused.

Case Background

Complainant:

• Name: Jonathan Brainard
• Purchase Details: Tata Nexon EV XZ+ LUX BOV, purchased for ₹16,95,000 on May 3, 2022.
• Issues: Vehicle performance deteriorated within 11 months, culminating in a fire incident that endangered the complainant's life and damaged the car beyond repair.

Opposite Parties:

• Manufacturers: Tata Motors Ltd. and Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Ltd.
• Dealers/Service Centers: Venkataramana Motors and Malik Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Complaint Summary

Allegations:

• The vehicle had persistent battery and drive mode issues.
• The High Voltage (HV) battery pack was replaced with a refurbished unit during warranty, leading to a catastrophic failure.
• A fire incident caused by the defective vehicle resulted in an accident and severe injuries to a motorcyclist, Mr. V. Balanarsaiah.
• Doors failed to unlock during the fire, posing a life-threatening situation.

Relief Sought:

• Refund of the car’s price with interest.
• Replacement with a new vehicle.
• Compensation for medical costs, mental agony, and litigation expenses.

Commission's Findings

Deficiency in Service:

• The vehicle exhibited significant defects, including failure of the HV battery pack within a year.
• The refurbished battery replacement was inadequate and unsafe, violating consumer rights.

Safety Compromise:

• The car’s failure during a fire incident was attributed to a manufacturing defect.
• Opposite parties failed to prove the fire was caused by external factors, as claimed in their defense.

Misleading Advertisements:

• Tata Motors falsely advertised the Nexon EV as a 5-star safety-rated vehicle, creating false assurances for consumers.

Negligence:

• The commission applied the legal principle of “res ipsa loquitur” (the thing speaks for itself), holding the manufacturer responsible for the unexplained fire incident.

Order

The commission allowed the complaint in part and directed Tata Motors and its dealers to:

Refund the Vehicle Price:

• ₹16,95,000 with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint (September 29, 2023) until realization.

Compensation:

• ₹2,50,000 for mental agony, inconvenience, and medical expenses incurred for the injured motorcyclist.

Litigation Costs:

• ₹10,000 to cover the cost of filing and pursuing the complaint.

Compliance Period:

• 45 days from the receipt of the order.

Key Takeaways

Manufacturer Accountability:

• Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring the safety and reliability of their vehicles, especially electric vehicles with critical components like HV battery packs.

Consumer Rights:

• The ruling reinforces the rights of consumers to receive a defect-free product and seek compensation for deficiencies in service.

Electric Vehicle Safety:

• This case highlights the need for stringent quality checks in electric vehicles, given the risks associated with HV battery failures.

This decision underscores the importance of safety, transparency, and accountability in the burgeoning electric vehicle market. Tata Motors and its dealers have been held jointly liable for failing to meet these standards, ensuring justice for the complainant.