As there are technical complexities in the case, the order given by the district consumer commission could be challenged in a higher court
This case relates to a Nexon EV that had caught fire last year in 2023. The complainant, Mr. Jonathan Brainard, living in Hyderabad, had sought a full refund, citing alleged defects in the Nexon EV. After hearing both sides, the district consumer disputes redressal commission of Hyderabad has ruled in favour of the complainant.
Allegations made by the complainant
According to the complainant, he had chosen Nexon EVas it was rated as one of the safest cars in India with 5-star rating in Global NCAP crash tests. Moreover, the Nexon EV promises optimal comfort, convenience and reliability. While the initial experience was good, the complainant started facing issues within 11 months of using the car. The complainant mentions that the car won’t run even when the battery was showing 18%. Moreover, the normal drive mode could not be engaged. This occurred a couple of times.
At the Tata Motors authorized dealer and service centre, it was found that the HV (High Voltage) battery pack was depleted. A replacement was ordered, but it took more than a month. During this time, the owner was asked to drive the Nexon EV without letting the battery charge drop below 50%. When the replacement battery arrived, the complainant was notified that it was a refurbished HV battery pack and not a new battery pack. Since the car was still under warranty, the complainant was expecting a new battery pack. But that was not the case.
The fire incident occurred around 12 days after installing the refurbished battery. While driving, the owner heard a loud noise originating from somewhere under the car. In a state of panic, the complainant lost control of the steering. The car first collided with a stationed motorcyclist and eventually slammed into a tree. The owner came out of the car and noticed that a fire had started and was spreading. Due to this, all other doors of the car had malfunctioned and were locked shut. In this incident, the Nexon EV was completely destroyed in the fire.
Response from opposite parties
In this case, the opposite parties include Tata MotorsTata Motors Passenger Vehicles and the authorized dealer and service centre. The lawyer representing the opposite parties stated that the fire in this case was caused due to external factors. It was claimed that the accident with the motorcycle or a short circuit in the wiring caused by the collision is likely to have started the fire. Referring to the telematics data analysed by the service centre, it was claimed that there was nothing wrong with the battery or other parts of the Nexon EV.
Data related to steering wheel movement, speed, application of brakes, etc. indicated that the fire occurred after the collision and not due to any defect in the car itself. For the loud bang the complainant had heard, the opposite parties said that it could come from any external reasons. It was also pointed out that the vehicle had covered more than 24,000 km in a span of around 14 months. This indicated that the vehicle was roadworthy and not defective, as claimed by the complainant.
The court order
After hearing both parties, the consumer court has ruled in favour of the complainant. In their opinion, the court concludes that the said car has a manufacturing defect. The court also points out that the actions of the opposite parties reveal unfair trade practices and deficiency in services. The court has ordered the opposite parties to pay the following compensation.
- Refund Rs 16,95,000, which is the original cost of the vehicle.
- An interest of 9% is applicable on the outstanding amount, till the date of realization.
- Rs 2,50,000 to be paid for causing mental agony, physical trauma and inconvenience to the complainant. This amount also covers the treatment cost of and compensation paid to V. Balanarasaiah, the motorcyclist involved in this accident.
- Rs 10,000 to be paid as the costs incurred by the complainant.
