Commission orders Rs 15 lakh refund after Force Motors vehicle developed engine defect

NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Karnataka has directed Force Motors and a dealer to replace a man's bus with a new vehicle of the same brand or refund Rs 15 lakh after finding an inherent manufacturing defect in the engine.

The commission also ordered them to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.In its September 30, 2026, order, the commission found that the vehicle developed serious engine problems within months of purchase and that the dealer and the manufacturer failed to establish their defence that problems resulted from the driver's negligence.

Why did the man approach the consumer commission?

As per the commission order, Mugundappa, a driver by profession, purchased a Force Cityline passenger vehicle from authorised dealer Arihant Motors on April 2, 2024, for Rs 16 lakh.

He alleged that he had taken loans to buy the vehicle and was supposed to earn a livelihood and support his family from the same.The vehicle came with a two year warranty. However, after driving it for around two months and covering about 9,000 km, the complainant faced engine overheating and seizure problems.He then took the vehicle to the dealer's service centre on May 27, 2024, and paid Rs 5,200. The problem recurred on June 10, 2024, when the coolant dried up and the engine seized again.

Mugundappa had to tow the vehicle to the authorised service centre.The complainant further alleged that despite repairs, the vehicle could not run properly. He sought replacement of the vehicle or a refund of the purchase amount, along with interest, compensation and litigation costs.However, the dealer and manufacturer denied that the vehicle had an inherent manufacturing defect and instead argued that the driver had ignored the low coolant warning and used non-recommended coolant which caused the engine to overheat.They also claimed that the vehicle had been repaired under warranty and was ready for collection.

What did the consumer commission find?

The bench of President Sanjeev V Kulkarni and member S S Kadrollimath examined the evidence, including the complainant's documents and a mechanic's report, to understand whether the vehicle had a manufacturing defect or not.The commission observed that the complainant had faced problems soon after purchasing the vehicle and relied on the evidence of a mechanic who had examined it.“Considering the repeated major repairs and service rendered by OPs and considering the expert evidence of PW2 and Ex.P15/Report we hold that the complainant has proved that this purchased vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defect and as such the case made out by the complainant appears to be more probable and approximate and as such the evidence of PW1 and 2 is accepted on record, whereas OPs have failed to prove their defence.

Hence complainant has made out case of inherent manufacturing defect crept in the newly purchased vehicle,” the commission noted.The bench further noted that the vehicle had been left at the dealer's showroom since June 10, 2024, and that the complainant had sought relief while the vehicle remained under warranty.“Hence we hold that, complainant has proved his case of deficiency in service and also proved that this passenger commercial vehicle is crept with major defect in the engine part and also gas kit and vehicle got seized on the middle of the road on 10.06.2024,” the commission added.The commission rejected the companies' defence and held that the vehicle had an inherent manufacturing defect. It also noted that the invoice established the purchase price as Rs 15 lakh, rather than the Rs 16 lakh claimed by the complainant.“Hence the purchased vehicle is having covered under warranty period and as such OP.1 and 2 shall bound to replace the vehicle by providing new vehicle of same brand of same price to complainant or in the alternative they shall refund invoice amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 6 percent p.a., from 02.04.2024 till realization,” it further said.

Final order

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, in its September 30, 2026, order, partly allowed the complaint and directed Arihant Motors and Force Motors, jointly and severally, to: