Authority: Supreme Court of India
Order Date: 29 July 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellant Mitsubishi Motors Corporation vs. Respondent Rakesh Kant Tuli & others; separate appeal by Hindustan Motor Finance Corporation Ltd.
- Complaint background: Purchaser bought a Mitsubishi Outlander; windshield cracked by a flying stone on 20-03-2016. Subsequent loud noise attributed to the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT). Contaminated CVT fluid was alleged, multiple parts (valve body, reverse clutch, gear box) were replaced, but noise persisted. Vehicle remained unusable.
- Consumer Complaint No. 709/2016 filed before Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking 50% refund of vehicle value, interest, registration charges, compensation for mental agony, alternative transport expenses and litigation costs.
- State Commission judgment dated 13-12-2018 partially allowed the complaint, directing Asian Motors, Hindustan Motors Ltd, Mitsubishi Motors and Hindustan Motor Finance Corporation Ltd to refund Rs 10,12,500 (50% of vehicle value), pay Rs 1,00,000 for mental agony and Rs 50,000 for alternative transport.
- National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirmed the State Commission order on 13-01-2020.
- Mitsubishi argued it was not the manufacturer; the vehicle was assembled by Hindustan Motors Ltd under a License Agreement dated 21-03-2008 and a Component Supply and Distribution Agreement dated 04-05-2010.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC judgment as to Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, holding that Mitsubishi was not liable for the alleged manufacturing defect; the appeal (Civil Appeal No.2712/2020) is allowed.
- The Court confirmed the NCDRC order for the other parties and dismissed the appeal (Civil Appeal No.367/2023) filed by Hindustan Motor Finance Corporation Ltd; the order must be complied with within three months of receipt of a copy of this order.
- All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Topics: Consumer Protection, Automobile Liability