Maruti dealer kept accident-hit car for nearly 10 years, consumer panel orders it to pay nearly Rs 1 lakh compensation

Imagine leaving your accident-damaged car at an authorised service centre expecting it back in a few weeks — only for it to remain there for nearly 10 years.

That's exactly what happened to Neeraj Gupta, whose Maruti Ertiga has remained at an authorised Maruti Suzuki dealership in Madhya Pradesh since 2016. Now, as reported by the Times of India, the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed the dealer's appeal and upheld an order directing it to compensate the customer, saying there was no evidence that the vehicle had ever been repaired.

Car sent for repairs in 2016, never returned

Gupta's Maruti Ertiga met with an accident on April 1, 2016. He handed it over the next day to Shubh Motors, an authorised Maruti Suzuki dealer in Katni, after being assured that repairs would take 20 to 25 days.


Weeks turned into months, months into years.

Despite repeated visits and assurances from the workshop, the repairs were never completed, forcing Gupta to approach the District Consumer Commission in Panna.

Dealer ordered to repair car and pay compensation

In January 2017, the district consumer forum directed the dealership to hand over the fully repaired vehicle.

It also allowed the dealer to recover 50% of the estimated engine repair cost of Rs 72,500, after adjusting the insurance claim, and ordered it to pay Rs 98,000 as compensation along with Rs 3,000 towards litigation expenses.

Instead of complying, the dealer challenged the order before the state commission.

Dealer's defence

The dealership argued that the district consumer forum had wrongly relied on an unauthenticated audio recording and contended that the delay in repairs was justified because work could begin only after the insurance survey. It also maintained that there was no rule requiring the engine to be opened in the owner's presence and challenged the compensation awarded to Gupta, claiming it was excessive since he had not produced any evidence to support his claim that he missed religious and family events due to the prolonged delay.

Customer says promises were broken

Gupta's lawyer argued that the dealer had promised to open the engine only in his presence but failed to do so.

The counsel also pointed out that although the dealer repeatedly claimed the vehicle was ready, it never issued a final repair bill or produced any proof that the repairs had actually been completed.

Adding to Gupta's hardship, the lawyer said the Ertiga had been purchased as a taxi to earn a livelihood. With the vehicle lying at the dealership for nearly a decade, he has been unable to use or even register it.

Commission finds no proof of repairs

The state commission, comprising Justice Sunita Yadav and Dr Monika Malik, was unconvinced by the dealer's arguments.

The bench noted that the dealership failed to produce any communication informing the customer that the vehicle had been repaired and was ready for delivery.

It also found glaring gaps in the records. While two job cards showed that engine repairs were estimated at Rs 72,500, the dealer produced only one bill of Rs 70,228, with no details of insurance adjustments or the final repair work.

The commission observed that even after nearly 10 years, there was no clarity about whether the vehicle had actually been repaired.

"There is no evidence... which could prove that the subject vehicle was repaired by the opposite party/appellant," the commission said.

Finding no error in the district forum's order, the state commission dismissed the dealer's appeal and upheld the compensation awarded to Gupta for deficiency in service.