Jaguar Land Rover India Ordered to Refund ₹1.65 Crore: Report

Jaguar Land Rover India has been ordered to refund ₹1.65 crore to a Roorkee-based company after the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that its flagship SUV suffered from inherent manufacturing defects and had been subjected to unauthorised structural modifications without the owner's knowledge, news agency PTI has reported. The bench, comprising President Kumkum Rani and member B S Manral, ruled on Monday that JLR India had engaged in unfair trade practice and delivered deficient service by selling a vehicle that failed to meet its own advertised performance claims.

The case was brought by M/s Eapro Global Limited, which purchased a Defender 110 X P400 in October 2022 for its director, Jagdeep Chauhan, at a cost of ₹1.65 crore. The complainant's counsel, advocate Vaibhav Jain, told the commission that the vehicle fell short on several of its core promises.

Central to the complaint was the SUV's acceleration performance. JLR had advertised the P400 variant as capable of reaching 0-100 kmph in 6.1 seconds, but evidence presented to the commission showed the vehicle consistently took more than 7.1 seconds to achieve that speed. The commission found that the buyer had been misled by this claim, which it considered a decisive factor in the purchase decision.

Advocate Jain also argued that the vehicle was missing a fuel filler flap central locking system -- a security feature listed in the standard specifications. He contended that its absence created a significant safety risk, as it left the fuel tank open to tampering by unauthorised individuals, which could prove life-threatening in remote locations.

Perhaps the most damaging finding concerned the vehicle's chassis. To address a persistent screeching noise, an authorised service centre had carried out cutting, welding and riveting on the chassis, the vehicle's structural backbone, without seeking the owner's consent. The commission ruled that such invasive alterations fundamentally compromised the vehicle's safety and utility.

JLR India sought to justify the performance discrepancy by arguing that advertised figures were recorded under controlled test conditions, and attributed the missing fuel lock to a global semiconductor shortage. The commission rejected both explanations, noting that the buyer had not been made aware of either limitation at the point of sale. The bench also dismissed JLR's contention that it bore no direct contractual obligation to the buyer, ruling that a manufacturer cannot use dealer agreements to shield itself from liability for inherent defects.

The commission directed JLR India to refund the full purchase price of ₹1,65,61,234, along with seven per cent annual interest calculated from the date the complaint was admitted -- 27 March 2024. 

The manufacturer was additionally ordered to pay ₹50,000 towards litigation costs.

The local dealer, Shiva Motocorp, was cleared of liability on the grounds that the defects originated with the manufacturer. The complainant has been given 15 days to return the vehicle.