Bharti Sharma Vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Competition Commission of India)
Summary: The Competition Commission of India considered an Information filed by Mrs. Bharti Sharma under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 against Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and Sri Durga Automobiles. The Informant owned a Mahindra XUV700 AX7 L PET AT 7-Seater purchased from Sri Durga Automobiles on 30.06.2024 and had opted for an extended warranty, extending warranty coverage till 13.07.2029.
During scheduled services on 14.01.2025 and 21.01.2026, the Informant supplied Pakelo Krypton XT LA-V SAE 5W-30 engine oil for use in the vehicle. According to the Informant, the specifications of the engine oil were shared with the authorised service centre, which accepted and used the oil without objection, warning or disclaimer concerning compatibility or warranty coverage. Shortly after the 21.01.2026 service, the vehicle displayed a “check engine system” warning, accompanied by reduced acceleration and performance. On 03.02.2026, the authorised service centre allegedly diagnosed a defective turbocharger assembly and estimated approximately ₹50,000 for replacement and labour.
The Informant sought replacement of the turbocharger under the manufacturer’s warranty and extended warranty, but alleged that the claim was refused because the engine oil had been sourced externally. Correspondence followed between the Informant and the Opposite Parties. The Informant contended that the engine oil met the prescribed specifications and sought the technical basis for treating it as incompatible with the vehicle or attributing the turbocharger failure to its use. According to the Informant, the Opposite Parties did not provide the requested technical justification and instead reiterated that warranty coverage was subject to use of Mahindra-approved consumables.
