Buying a car is a dream, but what if you repeatedly face issues after purchase? In one such case the Kurnool District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has asked the car manufacturer to reimburse an amount to the car buyer along with an interest payment.The Kurnool District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the car manufacturer and its dealer to refund the ex-showroom price of a diesel car to its owner after the vehicle was found to have developed recurring diesel particulate filter (DPF) problems.
What the case is about
A man in Andhra Pradesh, purchased a BS6-compliant Kia Sonet diesel car in 2022. He paid Rs 13.69 lakh for the vehicle. The manufacturer’s warranty remained valid until 2025. Ravindranath also opted for an extended warranty, taking the coverage period up to 2027.After some time, the car began developing repeated DPF-related problems. The man consequently took the vehicle to an authorised service centre on several occasions. Various checks, repairs and service interventions were carried out during these visits.These reportedly included examination of the DPF, replacement of a sensor and the battery, removal and refurbishment of the DPF unit and an ECM software upgrade. The service centre eventually removed the DPF and refurbished the unit.The car buyer also incurred an expense of Rs 13,000 for replacing the faulty sensor in his car. He was also advised to replace the battery, although he maintained that the battery was in good condition.Despite these repeated attempts at repair, the problem continued. The car kept developing DPF-related issues over a prolonged period, which the man was able to establish before the consumer commission.The man claimed to have carried out manual DPF regeneration and drove the car under highway conditions as advised, yet the same issue kept recurring.According to the car buyer, the opposite parties were given several chances to rectify the problem but failed to provide a lasting solution for the DPF issue.This remained the case even after extensive repair work, including refurbishment of the DPF and an ECM software upgrade. He claimed that the problem appeared again after the car had travelled only 338 km following these major repairs and the software upgrade.The car manufacturer, however, told the consumer commission that the vehicle had covered more than 43,782 km and had remained roadworthy since it was purchased.“Warranty is subject to its terms and conditions and does not cover issues arising from improper usage, driving patterns, fuel quality, or failure to follow the prescribed operating procedures,” it further said according to an ET report.The manufacturer also disputed the man’s claim that his BS6 diesel SUV was suffering from repeated DPF problems.Its position was that the DPF system fitted in the BS-VI diesel vehicle generates regeneration alerts based on factors such as driving conditions, fuel quality and usage. The manufacturer argued that the mere appearance of such alerts could not, by itself, be taken as proof of a manufacturing defect.The service centre similarly attributed the recurrence of DPF alerts after relatively short driving distances of around 300-500 km to the man’s driving pattern and his alleged failure to follow the prescribed DPF regeneration procedures.
Why did the car buyer win the case?
The judgment was delivered on September 1, 2026.The consumer commission noted that the vehicle’s service history went beyond routine maintenance records. Several job cards specifically documented complaints and work relating to the DPF, including issues involving the DPF sensor and filter, differential pressure sensor, as well as the vehicle’s pick-up and performance.The consumer commission said: “The continuity of such entries from 2022 onwards is relevant, particularly when the authorised service centre repeatedly undertook technical interventions in relation to the vehicle.”The commission also considered the manufacturer’s argument that the man’s driving pattern was responsible for the recurring DPF problem.It observed that if the owner’s driving habits were indeed the main and continuing reason for the issue, the authorised service centre, which had attended to the vehicle on several occasions, should have recorded this conclusion in its service records.The service centre should also have specifically informed the car owner that the recurring problem was linked to the way he was using the vehicle. However, the evidence placed before the consumer commission showed that no such observation or advice was recorded or communicated.The commission also rejected the service centre’s suggestion that rat-bite damage was responsible for the recurring DPF problems, finding that this could not account for the repeated issue.It similarly did not accept the argument concerning an ‘abnormal leakage in three fuel injectors’. The commission noted that this issue arose after the DPF problem had already been reported. It could potentially have contributed to the DPF issue, but could not be treated as the sole or complete explanation for the recurring problem.The consumer commission further observed that a diagnosis made at a later stage cannot, by itself, retrospectively override the earlier service history or establish that all the previous complaints had originated from the same cause.The consumer commission made it clear that the mere fact that a vehicle has undergone repeated repairs does not automatically establish a manufacturing defect in the strict technical sense. However, it said the complaint did not necessarily have to be decided solely on whether such a manufacturing defect had been conclusively proved.Instead, the evidence had to be assessed in the context of the warranty obligations and after-sales services provided by the car manufacturer and its authorised service centre.Against this backdrop, the commission found that the repeated attempts to rectify the problem had not succeeded.The consumer commission said: “The opposite parties (car manufacturer Kia and its service centre) have, therefore, failed to provide a satisfactory and durable solution to the recurring defect in the vehicle, amounting to a deficiency in service on their part.”The Kurnool District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Kia and its dealer to pay the car owner Rs 10.99 lakh, which is the ex-showroom price of the vehicle.They were also ordered to pay interest at 9% per annum, Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and another Rs 10,000 towards legal expenses.Malak Bhatt, Chamber Head at Chambers of Malak Bhatt, told ET that the consumer commission’s ruling was based on the effectiveness of the after-sales service rather than a finding that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect.The commission specifically acknowledged that repeated repairs, on their own, are not sufficient to establish a manufacturing defect. However, it also held that when the same problem continues to recur despite repeated visits to the service centre, replacement of parts and software upgrades during the warranty period, the consumer has not been given an effective and lasting solution. The commission treated this failure as a deficiency in service.
