Tata Harrier EV broke down multiple times after purchase, buyer left stranded on road; dealer ordered to refund Rs 24 lakh and pay Rs 65,000 compensation

A Tata Harrier EV owner ended up stranded on the road on more than one occasion within months of buying the car, after it kept breaking down due to a smart key fault and a locking system that would not work properly. A Telangana consumer commission has now ordered the dealer to refund close to Rs 24 lakh to the buyer and pay Rs 65,000 in compensation and costs.

The buyer had taken a loan to purchase the electric SUV for over Rs 26 lakh in August 2025. Within weeks of taking delivery, the vehicle started giving trouble, with the smart key losing range and the central locking system failing on and off, leaving the owner stuck on the road each time it happened. The buyer approached the commission after repeated visits to the service centre failed to fix the problem permanently.

Complaints started soon after delivery


According to the complaint, the trouble began almost immediately after the car was delivered in August 2025. The smart key would stop responding within its usual range, and the central locking system would either fail to lock the car or refuse to open it. This happened more than once, and on each occasion the buyer had to get the car towed or arrange help on the spot, since the vehicle could not be operated normally.

The buyer submitted call logs, chat records and email correspondence with the dealer as proof of having repeatedly flagged the issue. Screenshots placed before the commission showed a pattern of complaints being raised over several months, each time about the same two problems, the smart key and the locking system.

Same problem kept coming back despite repairs

Every time the car was taken to the service centre, the staff attended to the complaint, but the fault would return soon after. Job cards from December 2025, submitted as evidence before the commission, described the smart key and locking issues as old problems, showing that the defect had never actually gone away despite repeated repairs. At one point, the vehicle even stopped moving mid-way on the road, adding to the buyer's ordeal.

The service history placed on record by the dealer itself worked against its own defence. The commission noted that this history confirmed the persistence of the fault rather than showing that it had been resolved, since the same issue kept getting logged again and again over the months following the first repair.

Dealer said it was not responsible for a manufacturing fault

The dealer's defence was that it only sold and serviced the vehicle and could not be held responsible for a manufacturing defect. It argued that the manufacturer, and not the dealer, should be the one answering for any fault built into the car. The dealer also said that the buyer had not submitted any expert opinion to prove that the fault came from the manufacturing process, and that without such evidence, the complaint against it should not succeed.

The commission did not accept this defence. It noted that the dealer never placed any evidence on record to show its actual arrangement with the manufacturer or even the date on which the vehicle was delivered from the manufacturer to the dealer. In the absence of that proof, the commission held the dealer responsible for delivering a defective vehicle to the buyer, saying it could not let the dealer escape liability merely by claiming it was a separate entity from the manufacturer without backing that claim with documents.

On the question of expert evidence, the commission said this was not needed in the case, since the dealer's own service records confirmed that the smart key and locking faults persisted even after the complaint was filed and repairs were carried out. The repeated service visits and job cards, in the commission's view, were sufficient proof of a defect without requiring a separate technical report.

What the commission ordered

The commission directed the dealer to refund the price of the vehicle after deducting 10% for depreciation, working out to close to Rs 24 lakh. The buyer was also awarded Rs 50,000 as compensation for the mental agony and financial hardship caused by the repeated breakdowns, along with Rs 15,000 towards costs, taking the total additional payout to Rs 65,000.

The commission was clear that the compensation was meant to be fair and reasonable rather than an unjustified windfall, keeping the amount in proportion to the hardship shown in the case.

The dealer has been given 45 days to comply with the order. If the payment is delayed beyond that period, 9% annual interest will apply from the date of the order until the amount is actually paid. The buyer, in turn, has to return the vehicle to the dealer and assist with the paperwork needed to cancel its registration. The complainant was not given a refund of the CGST, SGST and other charges paid separately at the time of purchase, since these were treated as statutory dues rather than part of the deficiency claim.