Maruti Suzuki has responded to the order issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Raipur. In an official statement, the automaker contested the consumer court’s directions to provide a new E20-compliant car to the complainant, Dr. Premraj Debta, who moved the court against the company over E20-related damages to his Grand Vitara.
- Brand says the car was E20-compatible
- Claims it found contamination in the fuel
Maruti challenges consumer court’s order
Maruti Suzuki has now challenged the consumer court’s direction, stating that the Grand Vitara sold to Dr. Debta was E20-compatible. The automaker went on to say that the car was “fully equipped to handle E20 fuel, and this was disclosed in the owner’s manual”.
Pushing back further, Maruti claimed that it found evidence of contamination in the fuel collected from Dr. Debta’s Grand Vitara. “Several other facts have also not been reflected in the court’s order,” said Maruti Suzuki in its statement. The company said it is now planning to escalate the matter to a higher court while stating that it “remains fully committed to quality, safety and customer satisfaction through robust engineering, processes and systems”.
Previously, a Toyota Innova Hycross customer found themselves in a similar situation when their car kept suffering frequent breakdowns due to E20 fuel. However, Vikram Gulati, country head and executive vice president at Toyota Kirloskar Motor, responded by saying that the culprit was contaminated fuel, not E20. Meanwhile, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL) stated that during its nationwide fuel-quality tests, the company found no instances of adulteration, contamination or critical quality lapses.
Maruti E20 Raipur case
To recap, on July 14, 2026, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Raipur ordered Maruti Suzuki to replace Dr. Debta’s Grand Vitara with a new E20-compatible car. The doctor alleged that his car’s engine had stalled several times due to E20 petrol and that the issue was never permanently fixed by Maruti despite multiple visits to the service centre. Ultimately, the consumer court ordered the automaker to replace the complainant’s car with a brand-new one within 45 days or pay monetary compensation.
Dipan Sur
Dhruv Dhaka
Saptarshi Mondal
