In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the rights of a consumer, increasing the compensation awarded in a case against Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. The case, Arun Tandon v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., highlights the persistent issues faced by consumers with defective products and the legal recourse available to them.

The petitioner, Arun Tandon, purchased a Maruti Swift VDI car in 2014, which soon began to show defects, specifically a recurring problem with its horn. Despite taking the vehicle to the company’s workshops on eighteen separate occasions, the defects could not be permanently resolved. This led Mr. Tandon to file a complaint with the District Forum, which initially ordered the replacement of the vehicle or the payment of its cost, along with ₹10,000 in compensation for mental agony and ₹5,000 for litigation expenses.

The J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission modified this order, acknowledging the “deficiency of service” but only awarding a lumpsum compensation of ₹65,000.

In a decision dated September 18, 2025, the High Court found this compensation to be “inadequate and on a lower side,” noting the significant harassment and mental agony the petitioner endured. The High Court observed that the vehicle appeared to have been defective from the beginning.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ultimately disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to pay a total of

₹1,65,000 in lumpsum compensation to the petitioner. The breakdown of the compensation is as follows:

• Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.: ₹1,00,000
• Peaks Auto Pvt. Ltd.: ₹32,500
• Jammu Motors Pvt. Ltd.: ₹32,500

This landmark judgment serves as a powerful reminder to manufacturers and dealers of their responsibility to provide defect-free products and efficient service. It reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to protecting consumers from unfair practices and ensuring that a fitting remedy is provided for their grievances.

This ruling sets a strong precedent and reinforces the principle that persistent failure to rectify a product defect constitutes a clear deficiency of service, warranting substantial compensation for the consumer’s suffering.