The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission has ordered Tata Select Motors to refund a customer for a defective Tata Harrier EV following repeated technical malfunctions.

  • Tata Harrier EV experienced repeated smart-key and central-locking failures.
  • Commission ordered a refund after 10% depreciation.
  • Customer awarded ₹50,000 for mental agony and ₹15,000 in costs.

In a significant ruling for the automotive sector, the Hyderabad District Consumer Commission has directed Tata Select Motors to take back a Tata Harrier EV and refund the purchase price to the buyer. The decision follows a series of persistent technical failures that rendered the premium electric vehicle unreliable shortly after purchase.

Background of the Dispute

The complainant, a partnership firm represented by Pawan Bagrecha, purchased a Tata Harrier EV Empowered + 75 APC on August 1, 2025, for ₹27.98 lakh. Within days of delivery, the vehicle began exhibiting critical issues, including smart-key connectivity failures and central-locking malfunctions. According to the complaint, the vehicle stalled mid-way on multiple occasions, occurring four times within just one month of ownership.

Read Also:Ramesh Rangarajan Appointed Chairman of Kasturi and Sons Ltd.

While the dealer initially attributed these issues to a mere software glitch and attempted repairs, the problems persisted. The complainant subsequently sought a full refund and compensation for the mental harassment and financial strain caused by the defective product.

Why This Matters: BozokMedia Analysis

BozokMedia analysis shows that this verdict sets a critical precedent for the burgeoning Electric Vehicle (EV) market in India. As manufacturers transition to software-defined vehicles, the boundary between 'software glitches' and 'manufacturing defects' is becoming blurred. This case highlights that software updates are not a universal panacea for hardware-software integration failures, and dealers cannot evade liability by blaming the manufacturer if the service provided is deficient.

Frequent mechanical or electronic failures in a new vehicle constitute a clear deficiency in service, regardless of whether the manufacturer is a direct party to the suit.

The commission scrutinized the service history and job cards, noting that the repeated nature of the complaints—even after multiple repair attempts—established a clear pattern of deficiency. The bench, led by President B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi, observed that the dealer failed to provide a valid explanation for why the issues continued to plague the vehicle.

The Commission's Verdict

The commission declined to award the massive ₹10 lakh punitive damages sought by the complainant, stating that compensation should be fair and equitable rather than a source of profit. However, it ordered the dealer to refund the vehicle's price after a 10% depreciation deduction. Additionally, the buyer was awarded ₹50,000 for mental agony and ₹15,000 for legal costs.

The dealer has been given 45 days to comply with the order. Failure to do so will result in an additional 9% annual interest on the refund amount from the date of the order.

Did You Know?: Consumer courts can order a refund even if an expert engineer's report is missing, provided the service history proves the defect persists.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why was depreciation deducted from the refund?
The commission applied a standard 10% depreciation rule to account for the usage of the vehicle during the period it was with the owner.

2. Can a dealer avoid liability by saying they are just a service center?
No, the commission ruled that the dealer who executes the sale is liable for delivering a defective vehicle to the customer.