'Car Was E20 Compatible': Maruti To Challenge Consumer Forum Decision, Blames 'Fuel Contamination'

Last Updated:July 17, 2026, 12:27 IST

In a first, a consumer court ruled in favour of the complainant in the E20 fuel damage case and directed Maruti Suzuki to replace the old car with a new one.

Maruti Suzuki India on Thursday said it will challenge a consumer court order directing it to replace a customer’s Grand Vitara with a new E20-compatible vehicle, maintaining that the car involved in the case was already designed to run on E20 fuel and that the engine issues were caused by contaminated fuel.

In a statement, the country’s largest carmaker said the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur did not adequately consider evidence indicating fuel contamination.

“We have learnt of an order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, wherein Maruti Suzuki has been directed to replace the customer’s vehicle with a new E20-compatible vehicle," the company said.

“The car in this case was an E20 compatible car, fully equipped to handle E20 fuel and so disclosed in the owner’s manual," it added.

Maruti Suzuki also disputed the findings of the commission, asserting that the evidence pointed to fuel quality rather than any manufacturing defect.

“There is evidence of contamination in the fuel collected from the customer’s vehicle. Several other relevant facts have also not been reflected in the order," the company said.

It further stated, “Maruti Suzuki will take necessary steps to challenge the impugned order before appropriate higher forum in accordance with law."

Also Read: India’s First E20 Fuel Consumer Court Order: Car Replacement, Rs 1 Lakh Compensation To Vehicle Owner

Consumer Wins E20 Fuel Damage Case, Court Asks Maruti To Replace Car

The statement came after the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Additional Bench, Raipur, ruled in favour of complainant Premraj Debta, a Raipur-based doctor, holding that Maruti Suzuki and its authorised dealer had committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practices.

The commission directed the manufacturer and dealer to replace the complainant’s Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid Zeta Plus with a new vehicle equipped with an E20-compatible engine within 45 days.

If they fail to do so, they must refund Rs 20,50,494, the amount paid by the complainant towards the vehicle, registration and insurance, along with Rs 1 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.

According to the complaint, Debta purchased the top-end Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid Zeta Plus from an authorised Nexa dealership in Raipur on June 3, 2024. The vehicle, covered under an extended warranty, allegedly developed engine problems after running about 21,913 km.

During proceedings, the complainant said the vehicle first broke down on November 11, 2024, after its engine warning light came on. The dealer initially attributed the problem to adulterated fuel, drained the fuel tank and refilled it with fresh petrol.

However, the vehicle allegedly stalled again after travelling around 60 km and continued to develop engine and hybrid system faults despite repeated repairs.

The complainant also approached the petrol pump where he had refuelled the vehicle, but the outlet reportedly informed him that its fuel met prescribed quality standards and that no similar complaints had been received from other customers.

According to the complaint, Maruti Suzuki later informed the customer that the engine and certain other components required replacement due to fuel adulteration at an estimated cost of around Rs 5.3 lakh and declined to undertake the repairs under warranty.

After examining the case, the commission observed that the vehicle had been manufactured in January 2023 but was sold to the complainant in June 2024, nearly 16 months later. It also held that despite repeated fuel changes and cleaning of the fuel tank, the vehicle continued to malfunction, forcing multiple visits to the workshop.

Holding the manufacturer and dealer guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the commission ordered them to either replace the vehicle or refund the full purchase amount within 45 days.

It also directed that any delay in payment of compensation or refund would attract interest at the rate of 7% per annum until realisation.

With inputs from PTI

About the Author

Prisha Vibhavari

Prisha is the Chief Sub-Editor at News18.com, with more than 10 years of experience in national and international news. She specialises in editorial leadership, sharp news judgment, and high-impact st...Read More

News india 'Car Was E20 Compatible': Maruti To Challenge Consumer Forum Decision, Blames 'Fuel Contamination'

Read More