Kia Sonet owner to get Rs 10.99 lakh refund, 9% interest and compensation over repeated DPF issues in his car during warranty period: Consumer commission order

The Kurnool District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a recent judgement, ordered a car manufacturer and its dealer to refund the ex-showroom price of a diesel car to its owner after finding that the said vehicle was repeatedly facing diesel particulate filter (DPF) issues.

For those who are not aware, ever since the introduction of BS6 norms, most diesel vehicles include additional components such as a DPF, etc to meet the compliance requirements. Some manufacturers install a urea (AdBlue) tank in their diesel vehicles, including the car manufacturer involved in this court case. For example, diesel cars from Hyundai, Kia, and Mahindra and Mahindra, are equipped with AdBlue tanks; however, Tata diesel cars do not yet use AdBlue.

Coming back to this case, the consumer commission pointed out that it could not be conclusively established that there was a manufacturing defect in the car, but found that the car manufacturer and its dealer had not adequately addressed the issue or provided an effective solution during the vehicle warranty period; thus, the consumer commission ruled that this constituted a deficiency in service.


Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar, President and Members Sri N. Narayana Reddy and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar of the Kurnool District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Kia and its dealer to pay the car owner (Ravindranath) Rs 10.99 lakh (ex-showroom price), along with 9% interest per annum and Rs 10,000 compensation for mental agony and Rs 10,000 compensation for legal costs.

Let’s know the case in detail:

Ravindranath’s bumpy ride on Kia Sonet

Mr Ravindranath, a reputed doctor from Sunkesula Road in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, bought a BS6-complied Kia Sonet (diesel) car on March 12, 2022, for a sum of Rs 13.69 lakh. The vehicle was covered under the car manufacturer’s warranty up to March 11, 2025. Additionally, Ravindranath took an extended warranty that extends coverage till March 12, 2027.

However, after a while the car started having repeated issues with the diesel particulate filter (DPF). So, Ravindranath visited an authorised service centre of Kia a number of times. During such visits, various repairs and service measures were performed, including DPF checking, sensor replacement, battery replacement, removal and refurbishment of the DPF unit, and ECM software upgrading. The service centre subsequently removed and refurbished the DPF unit.

Moreover, Ravindranath had to pay Rs 13,000 to replace the faulty sensor of his Kia Sonet car. He was also advised to replace the battery, though, according to him, it was in good condition.

However, these repeated interventions did not solve Ravindranath’s problem. His Kia Sonet car faced the DPF issue repeatedly over a prolonged period, a fact that Ravindranath established before the consumer commission.

Ravindranath felt very frustrated; even after strictly following the instructions given by the car manufacturer, including manual DPF regeneration and driving the vehicle under highway conditions, the same defect repeatedly recurred.

Ravindranath said that despite being provided with multiple opportunities to address the issue, the opposite parties failed to permanently resolve the DPF issue of his Kia Sonet car, even after undertaking major repairs, such as DPF refurbishment and ECM software upgrading. He contended that the DPF problem resurfaced after his Kia Sonet car travelled just 338 km following the aforementioned major repairs and software upgrade.

The car manufacturer, however, in the consumer commission said that the concerned car has travelled more than 43,782 km till date and has remained roadworthy since its purchase. “Warranty is subject to its terms and conditions and does not cover issues arising from improper usage, driving patterns, fuel quality, or failure to follow the prescribed operating procedures,” it further said.

The car manufacturer also denied the fact that Ravindranath’s diesel BS6 car (Kia Sonet) is facing recurring DPF issues.

According to the car manufacturer, the DPF system fitted in the BS-VI diesel vehicle is designed to generate regeneration alerts depending on driving conditions, fuel quality and usage, and the mere occurrence of such alerts does not establish the existence of a manufacturing defect.

The service centre, on the other hand, said that the recurrence of DPF alerts after short-distance driving of about 300-500 km was attributable to Ravindranath’s driving pattern and his failure to follow the prescribed regeneration procedures.

Why did Ravindranath win the case?

Malak Bhatt, Chamber Head at Chambers of Malak Bhatt, said to ET Wealth Online that the consumer commission's decision turns on the effectiveness of the after-sales service rather than on a finding of manufacturing defect. It expressly recognised that repeated repairs do not, by themselves, establish a manufacturing defect. It held, however, that where the same problem recurs despite numerous service visits, part replacements and software upgrades within the warranty period, the consumer has not received an effective and durable remedy. That amounted to deficiency in service.

The manufacturer's defence that the alerts were caused by the owner's driving pattern did not succeed, as no cogent technical or expert evidence was led to show that usage was the sole cause. The Commission also observed that an ordinary consumer cannot be expected to know the operating requirements of an emission-control system.

The order is that of a district forum and remains open to challenge in appeal.

Consumer commission discussion

The judgement came on September 1, 2026.

Service job cards establish recurring DPF issues in Ravindranath’s Kia Sonet Diesel car

The consumer commission said that the service history is not merely a record of routine maintenance; several job cards specifically record DPF-related complaints and interventions concerning the DPF sensor/filter, differential pressure sensor, and pick-up and drop in performance.

The consumer commission said: “The continuity of such entries from 2022 onwards is relevant, particularly when the authorised service centre repeatedly undertook technical interventions in relation to the vehicle.”

‘If Ravindranath’s driving pattern caused DPF issues service centre should have mentioned it, but it did not’

The consumer commission observed that if Ravindranath’s driving pattern was the primary and continuing cause of the recurring DPF problem, the authorised service centre, having serviced the vehicle on multiple times, should have clearly recorded a such finding in its service records and explicitly informed Ravindranath that the recurrence was due to his usage habits.

However, the service centre did not mention this to Ravindranath, as per the evidence submitted before the consumer commission.

The consumer commission also dismissed the rat-bite angle taken by the service center, saying it cannot possibly be the reason for recurring DPF issues. The consumer commission also rejected the ‘abnormal leakage in three fuel injectors’ angle on the ground that this problem arose after the reported DPF issue and might be one of the factors behind the DPF issue but not fully responsible for it.

The consumer commission said that a subsequent diagnosis cannot, by itself, retrospectively negate the earlier service history or establish that all previous complaints were attributable to the same cause.

Manufacturing defect cannot be established but deficiency in service can be

The consumer commission said that repeated repairs, by themselves, do not necessarily establish a manufacturing defect in the strict technical sense. However, the present complaint need not be decided solely on whether a manufacturing defect has been conclusively proved.

The consumer commission said that the evidence must be examined from the standpoint of the warranty and after-sales service undertaken by the car manufacturer (Kia) and its service centre.

Thus, the consumer commission ruled that the repeated unsuccessful interventions, coupled with the continued recurrence of the DPF-related problem despite several inspections, repairs, and replacements of parts, demonstrate that the grievance was not effectively and permanently rectified during the warranty period.

The consumer commission said: “The opposite parties (car manufacturer Kia and its service centre) have, therefore, failed to provide a satisfactory and durable solution to the recurring defect in the vehicle, amounting to a deficiency in service on their part.”