East Champaran District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding Nissan and its associated dealers guilty of deficiency in service, has directed the refund of Rs 10.82 lakh with interest to a man who purchased a Nissan Evalia car, spending over Rs 11 lakh in 2014, which sat stranded in a company workshop for nearly eight years after its engine failed despite being covered under an extended warranty.

Commission president Girish Mishra and member Sanjeev Kumar were hearing a consumer complaint filed by Raxaul resident, one Kamal Kumar Sarraf, against Nissan Motor India, its dealer network and associated service centres over alleged failure to honour warranty commitments and repair his vehicle.

“Since the complainant’s vehicle suffered engine failure within the mileage limit covered under the extended warranty, the responsibility for carrying out repairs rested with the opposite parties. Their conduct amounts to a deficiency in service,” the commission said on June 11.

Sarraf stated that he approached the authorised service centre in August 2018 and was initially informed that repairs would cost around Rs 50,000. Later, he was allegedly asked to deposit Rs 21,000 and was informed that the engine had suffered extensive damage.

According to the complaint, service personnel subsequently informed him that the engine would need replacement and issued estimates running into several lakhs of rupees. At one stage, an estimate of Rs 3,91,308 was allegedly presented for repairs.

The complainant alleged that despite repeated requests, the company failed to honour the extended warranty and continued demanding money. He further claimed that the vehicle was dismantled without his consent and remained parked in the workshop for years without being repaired.

Representatives of Nissan and some of the opposite parties denied the allegations and argued that the complaint was not maintainable.

They submitted to the commission that the vehicle had received scheduled servicing and that the complainant had been informed about the nature of the engine problem.

According to their submissions, the extended warranty had expired, and therefore, the repairs were not covered under warranty provisions.

The company side also contended that repair estimates were properly communicated and that there was no deficiency in service.

After examining invoices, service records, warranty-related documents and submissions made by both sides, the commission found several discrepancies in the manner in which the extended warranty was handled.

The commission noted that while money had been collected from the consumer by Nissan for an extended warranty package, proper documentation was not furnished at the relevant time.

It also observed that the vehicle had run only about 23,290 kilometres when the dispute arose, significantly below the 80,000-kilometre limit mentioned in the warranty coverage produced before the commission.

The bench questioned why a consumer who had paid separately for an extended warranty was being asked to bear such a substantial repair bill when the vehicle’s engine failed within the warranty mileage limit.

“The complainant’s vehicle remained in the workshop for years, and repeated demands for money continued to be made. Such conduct is contrary to law,” the commission said.

Taking note of the prolonged dispute and the fact that the vehicle had remained in the workshop since 2018, the commission concluded that directing repairs at this stage would not be practical.

It therefore ordered the opposite parties to jointly refund Rs 10,82,181, representing the vehicle’s value, along with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum from September 1, 2018, until payment.

The commission also awarded Rs 25,000 towards compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses suffered by the complainant.

Additionally, it held that after payment of the awarded amount, the complainant would be entitled to take possession of the vehicle currently lying in the workshop.

The commission directed the opposite parties to comply with the order within two months. In case of non-compliance, the complainant has been granted liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for the enforcement of the order.

The ruling is being seen as a significant victory for consumers involved in warranty-related disputes, reinforcing the principle that manufacturers and authorised service centres cannot collect warranty charges and later deny coverage without adequate justification.

For Sarraf, the decision marks the end of an eight-year battle over a vehicle that, according to the commission, should never have remained stranded in a workshop for so long.