The NCDRC has stayed a ₹1.65 crore refund order against Jaguar Land Rover for a faulty Range Rover. The company, which has appealed a State Commission ruling on manufacturing defects, has made a statutory 50% pre-deposit pending the appeal.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has noted that Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd. has already made the statutory pre-deposit of 50% of the awarded amount and has, meanwhile, stayed the execution of an order directing refund of over ₹1.65 crore to a purchaser of a Range Rover vehicle pending consideration of the company’s appeal.
A Bench comprising Justice A.P. Sahi, President, and Member Bharat Kumar Pandya was hearing an appeal filed by Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd. against an order of the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission had allowed a consumer complaint alleging manufacturing defects in the vehicle and directed a refund of the vehicle’s purchase price along with 7% interest and litigation costs of ₹50,000.
Arguments Before the NCDRC
Jaguar Land Rover’s Submission
Appearing for Jaguar Land Rover, Senior Advocate S.K. Pattjoshi submitted that the findings of the State Commission on the issue of manufacturing defects were unsustainable. He argued that repairs had been carried out under the warranty conditions and that the allegations relating to acceleration issues, the fuel cap and other defects were not supported by the evidence on record. He further informed the Commission that the statutory pre-deposit requirement had already been complied with and sought interim protection.
Complainant’s Contention
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Nalin Kohli, appearing for the complainant along with Advocates Tejveer Singh, S. Sharma and Aditya Rathee, contended that the findings recorded by the State Commission were based on evidence and did not warrant interference at the appellate stage. He submitted that despite paying approximately ₹1.65 crore for the luxury vehicle in 2022, the complainant had allegedly been unable to derive the expected benefit from it due to defects that surfaced soon after purchase.
Kohli argued that the nature of the defects and the manner in which the vehicle was attended to justified replacement of the vehicle, and that the State Commission was therefore justified in directing a complete refund. He further submitted that the vehicle has remained parked at a service centre in Karnal and has largely remained unused. The complainant also urged the Commission to direct the deposit of the decretal amount and release of a portion of it, contending that while the purchaser had been deprived of the use of the vehicle, the company continued to retain the sale consideration paid several years ago.
Commission’s Interim Directions
After hearing the parties, the NCDRC directed the complainant to file an affidavit indicating the present status of the vehicle. The Commission observed that since the vehicle had been purchased in October 2022, an interim arrangement might be required to preserve or otherwise protect its value during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Commission granted time to the complainant to file a reply to the stay application, with liberty to the appellant to file a rejoinder thereafter. Pending further consideration of the stay application, the NCDRC ordered that no execution proceedings shall continue pursuant to the State Commission’s refund order. The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 7, 2026.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)