Tata Curvv EV had a faulty charging port; buyer to get Rs 1.1 lakh and free repairs

NEW DELHI: A Hyderabad consumer commission has directed Tata Motors and its dealer to replace faulty parts of a Curvv electric car free of cost and pay Rs 1.1 lakh to a buyer after finding that the new vehicle had a defective charging port at the time of delivery.

The commission also held both companies jointly and severally liable for the compensation and litigation costs.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad, passed the order on September 29, 2026, after finding that the electric vehicle had developed problems immediately after purchase and was repeatedly taken to service centres for repairs.

Background

According to the commission order, M R Laboratories Pvt Ltd, represented by its authorised signatory Mallikharjuna Rao Mathi, booked a new Tata Curvv EV from Orange Auto on December 28, 2024, by paying Rs 21,000.The company arranged the remaining vehicle cost through a Bank of Baroda car loan dated January 6, 2025. It also paid Rs 2,92,025 towards accessories and other charges on January 8, 2025, as instructed by the dealer. The vehicle was insured on January 10, 2025.The buyer requested delivery on January 24, 2025. According to the complaint, the dealer did not deliver the vehicle as promised and cited a ritual following a death at the car showroom.

The buyer was instead made to accept a hurried demonstration.During the demonstration, the vehicle’s charging port was found to be defective. The dealer assured the buyer that the problem would be fixed the next day, but no repair was carried out on January 25, 2025.The buyer alleged that the vehicle was shifted between service centres that lacked trained staff and proper equipment. The car remained at workshops from February 4 to February 15, 2025.

The complaint referred to different explanations given for the problem, including a broken latch, a stuck wire, an electrical malfunction and a burnt-out motor.The buyer sent a written complaint to the dealer on February 16, 2025. It was delivered on February 19, but the buyer received no response.He then approached the consumer commission seeking replacement of the vehicle or a refund of Rs 23,13,025, along with Rs 5 lakh as compensation and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs.

What did the dealer and Tata Motors say?

Orange Auto appeared through its law firm but did not file its written version within the prescribed period. The commission recorded that its right to file the response had therefore been forfeited.Tata Motors, however, opposed the complaint, arguing that M R Laboratories was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, because it had purchased the vehicle for business purposes.The manufacturer also argued that the dealer handled the sale, delivery, servicing and repairs, and that no manufacturing defect had been established through expert evidence.

It said it had no direct role in the alleged problems with the vehicle’s delivery and repairs and should not have been made a party to the complaint.

What did the commission find?

The bench comprising President M Ramgopal Reddy and members J Shyamala and D Sreedevi found that the buyer qualified as a consumer because Tata Motors had not produced documentary evidence showing that the vehicle was being used for commercial transport or a profit-generating fleet.The commission noted that the charging port, an essential part of an electric vehicle, was found to be defective at the time of delivery. It also took into account the repeated repair attempts and the dealer’s failure to file its written response.“The uncontroverted facts reveal that the vehicle's charging port-the absolute lifeline of an Electric Vehicle was dysfunctional at the exact time of delivery (24.01.2025),” the commission said.It further observed that the dealer had failed to address the allegations through a written response. The commission treated this, along with the evidence on record, as supporting the buyer’s complaint about the defective vehicle and the dealer’s service.The commission also considered Tata Motors’ argument that the buyer had not established a manufacturing defect through expert evidence. It noted that no expert opinion from an authorised laboratory or authority had been produced to establish a manufacturing defect that would justify replacement of the entire vehicle or a refund of its price.“Since the vehicle has spent an extensive period under experimental repairs immediately post-delivery, both Opp.parties are jointly and severally liable as the manufacturer produces the goods, and the dealer serves as its market conduit,” the bench said.The commission concluded that the buyer was entitled to relief for the inconvenience and mental agony caused by the supply of a vehicle with defects. It directed the companies to replace the faulty parts at no cost rather than order replacement of the entire vehicle or a refund of its price.

Final order

The consumer commission partly allowed the complaint in its September 29, 2026 order and directed Tata Motors and Orange Auto, jointly and severally, to: