A Rs 53.72 lakh luxury SUV was barely out of the showroom when its audio system allegedly began acting up. For the buyer, what started as a seemingly small speaker problem turned into a years-long consumer battle over repairs, responsibility and whether the SUV should be replaced. The West Bengal State Consumer Commission has now awarded Rs 1.5 lakh for deficient after-sales service of the car, but rejected a replacement or refund.The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission judicial member Rajesh Guha Ray and member Santanu Saha were hearing a complaint by Zeniak Innovation India Limited against Lexus Motors Limited and Lexus Motors Limited (Workshop) over the luxury vehicle bought for the personal use of the company’s director.“A consumer buying a new premium vehicle is entitled to competent diagnosis, clear communication and effective warranty attention,” the commission said on September 3, holding that the failure to close the admitted audio complaint with objective diagnostic confirmation amounted to deficiency in service.The vehicle was purchased on March 31, 2019, and delivered on August 5, 2019. The complainant said the front door did not close properly, and the audio system malfunctioned almost immediately, with emails starting on August 8, 2019. The car first went to the workshop on August 19, and a legal notice followed on September 16, 2019.Trouble began within daysAdvocates Sagnik Sen Roy and Dipyaman Sinha appearing for the complainant alleged that repeated inspections and attempted repairs did not satisfactorily resolve the problems. It sought replacement of the car or a refund. However, Advocate A K Biswas, appearing for the opposite party, the authorised dealers denied any manufacturing defect but acknowledged the music-system complaint. It said the necessary parts or system had been replaced free of cost under warranty and that the vehicle was ready for delivery.The complainant eventually took the car back on November 26, 2019. But the delivery feedback recorded that the front-left speaker sounded somewhat different and that the sound was continuous. That detail became central to the commission’s finding on after-sales service.Whole car not defectiveThe commission drew an important distinction between a faulty component and an inherent manufacturing defect in the entire vehicle. It noted that the audio complaint was raised within days of delivery and that the opposite parties themselves had replaced audio components or the system under warranty. That supported the existence of a defect in the component at the relevant time.Story continues below this adBut the evidence did not establish that the entire vehicle suffered from an inherent or systemic manufacturing defect. There was no independent automotive engineer’s report, diagnostic scan, comparative audio test, laboratory analysis or commission-directed inspection proving such a defect. The front-door allegation was also unsupported by a job card, inspection report, photograph or expert opinion.Rs 1.5 lakh relief, plus one last repair chanceAllowing the complaint in part against the authorised dealer, the commission rejected the demands for replacement, refund and Rs 8,21,809 in damages. It instead ordered the two opposite parties to jointly and severally pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for deficiency in after-sales service and Rs 50,000 as litigation costs.The amount must be paid within 45 days. If unpaid, the Rs 1.5 lakh will carry simple interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of default until realisation. The commission also gave the complainant one final opportunity to have the audio problem checked.TakeawayBuyers should document defects promptly, keep records of emails and repair visits, and insist on clear confirmation that warranty complaints have actually been resolved.Story continues below this adConsumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (West Bengal: 033–2252–0448) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Don’t miss out on these storiesKept patient in general ward but charged for ICCU, hospital ordered to refund Rs 2 lakhInsurer cites policy breach to deny dacoity claim, finance firm wins Rs 44.54 lakhApex consumer body orders Kolkata nephrologist to pay Rs 5 lakh after delay cost dialysis patient her life