u/niranjanbadhri

Brief:

I booked a brand-new Mahindra XUV 3XO from JUBILANT MAHINDRA - VELACHERY CHENNAI on 20 February 2025 and completed the full payment based on the dealership's assurance that the vehicle would be available for inspection only after full payment. During the first pre-delivery inspection, the allotted vehicle was found with a dent, following which the dealer promised a replacement. However, the replacement process was delayed far beyond the promised timeline, eventually culminating in the delivery of another vehicle that itself had multiple quality issues, including scratches, poor cleanliness, and a suspected sunroof issue.

Despite repeated emails supported by documentary evidence, photographs, screenshots, and call records, the dealership has not addressed the larger issues of prolonged delay, poor handling of the vehicle, deficient service, and the compensation sought for the financial loss, inconvenience, and mental distress caused. Instead, the dealer has restricted its response to offering vehicle polishing and a ₹300 refund, leaving the primary grievances unresolved. No satisfactory or comprehensive solution has been arrived at despite extensive correspondence.

Detailed Issue Seeking Legal Support from Broseph team:

I am seeking legal assistance from advocates or consumer rights professionals who may be willing to voluntarily support me in obtaining an appropriate legal remedy against the dealership for what I believe constitutes deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and failure to honour commitments.

The sequence of events is summarized below:

• I booked a Mahindra XUV 3XO AX7 Petrol Manual on 20 February 2025 and paid the entire consideration (loan amount of ₹10,00,000 plus down payment of ₹4,09,450) after being informed that inspection would be permitted only after complete payment.
• During the first Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) conducted on 3 April 2026, I discovered a noticeable dent on the allotted vehicle. Since I was purchasing a brand-new vehicle, I refused repair and requested a replacement. Although the dealership later agreed to replace the vehicle at the original ex-showroom price, it initially attempted to impose the revised April 2026 pricing, which I opposed because the defect was entirely attributable to the dealer.
• On 6 April 2026, the dealership formally acknowledged that the vehicle had suffered a transit dent and assured me that a replacement vehicle would be made available within 2–3 days.
• Contrary to this assurance, no replacement vehicle was made available within the promised period. Even after ten days, I had not been allowed to conduct the PDI, compelling me to send a reminder highlighting the financial impact caused by the delay.
• The replacement vehicle was eventually inspected only around 18 April 2026, well beyond the promised timeline. During this inspection, I found the vehicle to be in an unsatisfactory condition requiring proper cleaning before delivery. Even after repeated requests, the cleaning remained inadequate.
• Further delays followed because the dealership's insurance arrangement with its insurer had reportedly been discontinued, forcing the insurance process to restart. Although I accepted the revised quotation immediately upon receiving it, the insurance was processed only after additional delay. Registration was also delayed despite timely submission of all required documents from my side.
• Finally, the vehicle was delivered on 16 May 2026, but the delivery itself was unsatisfactory. The vehicle contained multiple scratches across the body, the interiors were unclean, and I noticed an unusual noise while operating the sunroof. I also discovered that the vehicle had apparently remained parked outdoors for an extended period, exposing it to poor environmental conditions and possible interference by stray animals and unauthorized persons, which significantly diminished the expected condition of a brand-new vehicle.
• I formally complained about:
  • the damaged first vehicle;
  • excessive delay in replacement and delivery;
  • poor storage and handling of the replacement vehicle;
  • scratches and inadequate cleaning at delivery;
  • suspected sunroof issue;
  • excess collection of ₹300 towards TCS;
  • financial loss arising from prolonged blocking of my funds;
  • mental agony, inconvenience, and overall deficient customer service.
• While the dealership apologized for certain aspects, it largely denied responsibility for the delays, attributed some issues to routine processes, stated that the sunroof noise was normal without proper inspection, and offered only:
  • exterior polishing;
  • refund of ₹300 after submission of banking documents.
• The dealership has not meaningfully addressed my requests for compensation, accountability for the documented delays, poor storage conditions, delivery of a vehicle below expected standards, or the overall deficiency in service, despite the existence of email records, photographs, screenshots, and supporting communications.

I possess documentary evidence including the complete email trail, photographs & videography of the vehicle defects, screenshots, voice recordings, and supporting communications that substantiate the sequence of events.

I am therefore seeking legal guidance and, if possible, voluntary representation from advocates experienced in consumer protection matters. I wish to understand the legal remedies available under applicable consumer protection laws and pursue appropriate compensation and relief for the financial loss, inconvenience, mental agony, and deficient service that I have experienced throughout this transaction.