Jaguar Land Rover ordered to refund Rs 1.65 crore, panel slams ‘deceptive’ speed claims, chassis ‘surgery’

Dehradun, In a major setback for the luxury carmaker, the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) India to refund Rs 1.65 crore to a Roorkee-based firm after its flagship SUV was found to have inherent manufacturing defects and unauthorised structural alterations.

The bench, comprising President Kumkum Rani and member B S Manral, on Monday ruled that the manufacturer engaged in “unfair trade practice” with “deficiency” in its service, by selling a vehicle that failed to meet its own advertised performance benchmarks.

The legal action was initiated by M/s Eapro Global Limited, which purchased a “” in October 2022 for its director, Jagdeep Chauhan.

According to the complainant’s counsel, advocate Vaibhav Jain, the high-end SUV failed to deliver on its core promises. One of the primary grievances involved the vehicle’s acceleration capabilities; while the company advertised that the “P400” model could reach 0-100 kmph in 6.1 seconds, the complainant provided evidence that the vehicle consistently took over 7.1 seconds to achieve that speed.

The commission observed that the complainant was “deceived” by this inaccurate statement, which was a key factor in the purchase of the Rs 1.65 crore vehicle.

Advocate Jain further argued that the vehicle lacked a “Fuel Filler Flap – Central Locking” system, an essential security feature that was listed in the standard specifications. He emphasised that the absence of this locking mechanism posed a severe security risk, as unauthorised persons could easily access the fuel tank to steal fuel or introduce hazardous substances like sand or sugar, which could be “life-threatening” in remote areas.

A critical finding in the commission’s order was the admission that the vehicle’s chassis — the foundational load-bearing skeleton — had been subjected to “major surgery”. To address a persistent screeching sound, the authorised service centre performed chassis cutting, welding, and riveting without the owner’s consent. The bench ruled that such structural alterations to the “backbone” of the car changed its very foundation and impacted its safety and utility.

JLR India defended the performance gap by claiming the advertised speed was achieved under “controlled test conditions” and attributed the missing fuel lock to a “global shortage in automobile chips”. However, the commission dismissed these arguments, noting that the buyer was never informed of these limitations at the time of purchase.

The bench also dismissed JLR’s claim of having no direct contract with the buyer, stating that a manufacturer cannot escape liability for inherent defects through agreements with its dealers.

Delivering the verdict, the commission directed JLR India to refund the entire purchase price of Rs 1,65,61,234 along with 7 per cent annual interest from the date the complaint was admitted (March 27, 2024).

The manufacturer was also ordered to pay Rs 50,000 in litigation expenses, while the local dealer, Shiva Motocorp, was exonerated from liability as the defects were inherent to the manufacturing process.

The complainant has been directed to return the vehicle to the manufacturer within 15 days.