Ahmedabad: Buying a luxury SUV is meant to bring comfort, reliability and reassurance. For Ahmedabad resident Nayan Thakkar, however, a Volvo XC90 became a long-running cycle of technical glitches, workshop visits and steep repair bills—ending in relief from Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.The Swedish automobile maker and its dealer, Autobots, Gara Auto Zone Pvt Ltd, have been ordered to refund Rs 22.25 lakh spent by Thakkar on repairs and maintenance, and to pay Rs 75,000 as compensation for inconvenience and mental harassment, along with Rs 15,000 towards litigation expenses.Thakkar, a Satellite resident, bought the SUV in 2015 for about Rs 93 lakh. In his complaint, he said the vehicle soon developed multiple technical problems, including malfunctioning of the engine oil meter, emission of thick black smoke and recurring mechanical issues. He alleged the defects repeatedly forced the car into the workshop, often for long stretches because parts had to be imported from Sweden. Despite multiple repairs, he claimed the issues kept returning, undermining the hassle-free ownership experience expected of a premium vehicle.Two years later, he approached the consumer forum, arguing that he had paid for more than transportation—he had invested in dependability, convenience and peace of mind. He cited a technical expert’s opinion pointing to an ongoing chain of mechanical and technical defects.Volvo and the dealer denied there was any manufacturing defect, stressing the SUV had been driven nearly 99,046 km. They argued the expenses claimed were routine servicing and maintenance after extensive use, and said delays due to importing specialised components from Sweden could not be treated as deficiency in service.The commission, after examining the evidence, held that importing parts from abroad by itself did not establish a manufacturing defect.It also declined the demand for a full refund, noting the vehicle had run nearly one lakh kilometres. But it found that repeated faults and repair dependency still entitled the buyer to relief, observing: “The complainant purchased a premium luxury vehicle with an expectation of comfort, reliability and peace of mind. The repeated complaints, workshop visits, requirement of specialized components and substantial repair expenditure undoubtedly caused inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. Merely because the vehicle could continue to be driven does not mean that the complainant was not entitled to raise a grievance regarding repeated defects and loss of peace of mind caused thereby.”
