After 4 years of ‘nightmare’ breakdowns, Hyundai Venue owner wins Rs 5.86 lakh relief

6 min readNew DelhiJun 22, 2026 12:39 PM IST

Grand Hyundai said they had carried out the replacement of parts when complaints arose, and they were unaware that the complainant had spent money for alternative travel. (AI-generated image)

Holding that recurring defects and repeated replacement of parts deprived the owner of the comfort and reliability expected from a new vehicle, a consumer court in Kerala’s Palakkad has directed Grand Hyundai to pay the owner of a Hyundai Venue car Rs 4.36 lakh at 10 per cent from the date of complaint, besides an additional Rs 1.5 lakh as compensation and litigation costs.

A bench of president Vinay Menon V and members Vidya A and Krishnankutty N K observed that after suffering recurring complaints for nearly four years, the complainant is also entitled to compensation and costs.

“When any person purchases a vehicle, they will have a legitimate expectation that the vehicle can be driven faultlessly in comfort. But in the case herein, with the recurring complaints necessitating replacement of parts, not once, but on multiple occasions, plying the car had become a nightmare. Complainant’s legitimate expectations were trampled upon by the recurring complaints,” the May 20 order said.

Trampled upon expectations: Court

The commission noted that when any person purchases a vehicle, they will have a legitimate expectation that the vehicle can be driven faultlessly in comfort.

But in this case, with recurring complaints necessitating replacement of parts on multiple occasions, plying the car had become a “nightmare”, and the complainant’s legitimate expectations were trampled upon.

The commission found that paying the value of the vehicle together with interest was justified since the complainant had used the car, albeit suffering recurring complaints, for nearly four years.

In view of the aforementioned material on record, the complainant was entitled to Rs 4,36,500, together with interest at the rate of 10 per cent from May 20, 2024, the date of filing of the complaint, till the date of payment.

It was noted that the complainant was also entitled to a compensation of Rs 1 lakh and an additional Rs 50,000 as costs.

The amount shall be paid within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to a solatium of Rs 1,000 per month or part thereof from the date of this order till the date of payment.

Defects within 2 years, repairs

The complainant purchased a Hyundai Venue 1.2 Kappa MTS vehicle from Grand Hyundai, Palakkad, on November 24, 2020.

The complainant, being in the Merchant Navy, this complaint is prosecuted by his wife, the Power of Attorney holder.

Within two years of purchase, the vehicle exhibited various defects like noise coming from the steering, unexpected halting, breaking of the cylinder assembly clutch release and various other parts.

During the warranty period, Grand Hyundai replaced these parts free of cost.

On March 1, 2024, when a complaint recurred, Grand Hyundai refused to carry out the repair/replacement free of cost as the warranty period had expired.

The complainant had to incur substantial costs to arrange alternative travel while the vehicle was under repair.

When such breakdowns became a recurring incident, the complainant and his family lost confidence in the vehicle.

The complaint was filed seeking half of the vehicle’s value or replacement and for other incidental and ancillary reliefs.

‘Complaints addressed per warranty’

Grand Hyundai filed a detailed version stating that they had carried out the replacement of the parts as and when the complaints arose, and that they were unaware of the amounts expended by the complainant for arranging alternative travel.

It was argued that whenever a complaint occurred, the same was addressed as per warranty terms and conditions, and the staff of Grand Hyundai had never informed the complainant that the vehicles suffered from a manufacturing defect, because of which the complaint was liable to be dismissed, as the complainant was not entitled to any relief sought.

Damages of physical nature: Court

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad, opined that replacement of defective parts alone would not serve the interest of justice, as it has been conclusively proven that Grand Hyundai had been continuously replacing the defective parts of the car but for reasons best known to them, even after replacements, the vehicle had been suffering cracks and physical damages.

It was observed that Grand Hyundai had no case that such cracks and damages occurred due to the rough and negligent use of the car, and they contended that the car was not being used much and that such non-use might lead to damages, which was unbelievable since the damages are of purely physical nature of metallic parts and remaining idle would not contribute to such damages.

Story continues below this ad

Consumer takeaway

The ruling underscores that a consumer cannot be deprived of their right to a claim when they have produced all the documents in favour of their case, and that a vehicle manufacturer and dealers cannot skip their liability by replacing defective parts if the underlying problem stays persistent.

It underlines that a new consumer is entitled to expect reasonable reliability and safety, and in this case, the consumer was deprived of that comfort associated with a new vehicle.

Aggrieved consumers may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Kerala helpline:  1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.

She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.

Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.

Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More

Tags:

consumer court

Hyundai

Kerala