Truck owner paid for repairs despite warranty; consumer commission orders Mahindra, dealer to pay Rs 34,000

NEW DELHI: A consumer commission in Himachal Pradesh has ordered Mahindra and its authorised dealer to refund over Rs 19,000 to a vehicle owner who was left stranded on a remote road when his pickup truck broke down, and was later forced to pay for repairs that should have been covered under warranty.What was the case about?Dinesh Kumar bought a Mahindra Bolero Pickup to earn his livelihood. The vehicle came with a manufacturer's warranty of three years or one lakh kilometres, whichever came first. He had also purchased a one-year Road Side Assistance (RSA) policy through the dealer, by paying a premium of Rs 2,299.On December 21, 2022, the vehicle suddenly developed a fault in its gear system and came to a complete halt near Village Sagloga, Tehsil Churah.

Dinesh contacted the dealer on December 22, 2022, at around 10 AM for towing assistance but got no help, after which he arranged a private vehicle to tow his truck to the workshop, spending Rs 3,500 from his own pocket.At the workshop, instead of repairing the vehicle under warranty, the dealer raised a bill of Rs 13,567 for the parts and labour, claiming that the damage was caused by driver abuse and was therefore not covered under the warranty.

Dinesh paid the amount under protest and approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chamba, seeking a refund of Rs 17,067.90 along with compensation for mental agony.However, the dealer argued that Dinesh had failed to call the dedicated toll-free helpline number and that they received no breakdown call. They further claimed that the damage to the gear assembly was caused by the driver continuously operating the vehicle despite knowing it had a fault, which fell under Clause 8 of the warranty terms that excludes misuse and abuse.Mahindra argued that Dinesh did not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes, and that a delayed service at 51,125 kilometres — slightly beyond the prescribed 50,000 km limit — had voided the warranty under Clause 1. Mahindra also claimed that the rescue team reached the site but the complainant was not there.What did the commission say?The commission, presided over by Hemanshu Mishra and members Arti Sood and Naryan Thakur, rejected the arguments of the dealer and the manufacturer and held them liable for deficiency in service.The commission noted that high mileage alone does not disqualify an owner from being a consumer, especially when the vehicle is his sole means of livelihood.The commission found that neither the dealer nor Mahindra produced any documentary evidence to show that a rescue team was actually dispatched — no call logs, no name of the towing agency, no registration number of the recovery vehicle, nothing."Having failed to provide a single shred of log data, their defence is deemed a baseline assertion without legs," the commission observed.

Since no roadside assistance was provided despite collecting the premium, it directed a full refund of the RSA amount as well.On the warranty denial, the commission rejected both arguments put forward by the dealer and Mahindra. It said blaming the driver for abuse and pointing to a delayed service were excuses raised after the fact to avoid paying up, and that no technical report or expert opinion was produced to actually show that the driver had done anything to cause the gear to break.The commission also found that the document signed by Dinesh at the workshop — which described the damage as caused by "abusing" — looked like it was prepared to cover up the failure to send roadside help, and that Dinesh had been pressured into signing it and paying the bill because his only source of income was sitting in their workshop and he had no choice.The commission directed the dealer and Mahindra jointly to refund Rs 19,373.90 — comprising the repair bill of Rs 13,575.90, private towing charges of Rs 3,500, and the unserviced RSA premium of Rs 2,298 — along with nine percent interest from the date of filing the complaint. It also awarded Rs 7,500 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 7,500 towards litigation costs.