E20 petrol row: Raipur consumer court first asks Maruti Suzuki to replace damaged Grand Vitara or refund buyer | Today’s news
A consumer court in Chhattisgarh ruled in favor of a consumer in a case related to alleged repeated engine problems associated with ethanol petrol.
Raipur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional Bench) directed Maruti Suzuki to replace Big Vitara with a new E20 compatible model or a refund of the purchase price in favor of a consumer who claimed repeated engine problems related to ethanol gasoline.
The Commission also awarded the complainant Dr. Premraj Devta or Raipur compensation amounting to ₹1 Lakh for mental harassment and ₹10,000 as legal costs, according to the order seen by Mint and first reported ETV India.
The order, passed on July 14, 2026, assumes significance amid growing concerns among sections of vehicle owners and experts over the Centre’s drive to increase the blending of ethanol in petrol. Critics question its impact on engine performance, fuel economy and compatibility with older vehicles.
In the midst of a row of ethanol-laced fuel, the Union Minister of Road Transport and Highways Nitin Gadkari stated that motorists who prefer not to use gasoline with ethanol can choose 100% gasoline, although they will have to pay a higher price.
The Raipur consumer court order would possibly be the first court verdict in the ethanol fuel row.
Maruti Grand Vitara 2023 model
In his 23-page order passed by Prashant Kundu, chairman of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and member Dr. Anand Verghese, the Commission recognized that the 2023 model Maruti Grand Vitara The Strong Hybrid Zeta Plus vehicle sold by the complainant was not compatible with E20 petrol.
After the complainant put E20 gasoline in his car, the vehicle began stalling repeatedly, requiring multiple fuel changes, tank cleaning and frequent visits to the service center, the court heard. Despite this, the problem persisted.
Failed to provide an E20 compatible vehicle
The commission said the company and the dealer failed to provide the consumer with an E20-compatible vehicle of the same model. The commission considered this a lack of service and an unfair business practice.
The commission said the company must take back the complainant’s existing vehicle and replace it with a new one E20 compatible car of the same model within 45 days.
The commission said that if the company does not provide a new E20-compatible vehicle within 45 days, it will have to refund the full price of the vehicle. The commission clarified that the company must return the value of the vehicle ₹18.29 lakh, RTO fee ₹1,86,850, and premiums amounting to ₹34,644, total ₹20,50,494 to the complainants.
The commission considered this a lack of service and an unfair business practice.
If the company fails to comply with all orders within 45 days, it will be required to pay 7 percent annual interest on the mental injury amount and court costs from the date of the order until paid, the order said.
While a consumer court order is binding on the accused, it can be challenged in higher commissions or even High Courtsbut usually only through writ petitions (under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution) rather than through a direct statutory appeal.
