Kia India Dealer Ordered To Refund ₹10.99 Lakh Over Recurring Problem
Kurnool consumer commission ordered Kia India and its dealer to refund ₹10.99 lakh over a recurring DPF problem in a Kia Sonet.
The Kurnool District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Kia India and its authorised dealer MG Brothers, Kia Kurnool, to jointly and severally refund ₹10,99,890 to a consumer over a recurring Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) problem occurring in the Kia Sonet he had purchased.
The commission partly allowed the Consumer Complaint No. 48/2026 filed by Tummakomma Ravindranath and ordered the companies to refund the vehicle’s ex-showroom price with 9 per cent annual interest from February 25, 2026, till realisation. The complainant has to hand over the defective vehicle.
Further, the commission awarded ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses. The order has been pronounced by the bench comprising president Karanam Kishore Kumar and members N. Narayana Reddy and S. Nazima Kausar.
According to details, Ravindranath purchased a Kia Sonet HTX Diesel on March 12, 2022. The DPF problem surfaced when the vehicle had run only 364 km, with the instrument cluster displaying a “Diesel Filter Regeneration Request” warning. The consumer approached the authorised service centre several times. DPF regeneration, replacement of the DPF sensor, injector refurbishment, DPF assembly refurbishment, and ECM software upgrades had been carried out. But the problem reportedly continued to recur.
Kia India and the dealer contended that the issue is because of the consumer’s driving pattern, particularly short-distance driving and failure to follow the prescribed DPF regeneration procedure. They cited alleged rat-bite damage and abnormal fuel injector back leakage.
The commission, however, observed that the company has failed to produce convincing technical or expert evidence to establish that the recurring defect is solely attributable to the consumer’s driving pattern. It said general instructions in the owner’s manual could not by themselves establish that every recurrence is due to the consumer’s failure to follow the manual.
