Doctor Who Won E20 Consumer Court Case: Fed Up With Petrol, Now Drives An EV
We are sure that, most likely, by now you must know about the Raipur-based nephrologist and kidney transplant physician, Dr Premraj Debta, and his complaint regarding his Maruti Suzuki Grand Vitara not being E20 compliant. As a result of this complaint, Maruti Suzuki was ordered to provide him with a new car. Well, it has now been reported that, after getting frustrated due to the back and forth, Dr Debta now no longer drives a petrol-powered car. After winning a consumer court case over the issue, he has switched to an electric vehicle, saying he has lost faith in petrol, hybrid, and diesel vehicles.
Recently, during an interview, Dr Premraj Debta stated that he has now made a switch to an electric car after the tiring episode with the Maruti Suzuki Grand Vitara strong hybrid. During the interview, Dr Debta did not report which exact electric vehicle he has bought. He highlighted that charging an EV during long journeys can be inconvenient. However, he believes that he would rather stop to recharge than risk being stranded again because of an unreliable vehicle.
For those who might not be up to speed, Dr Premraj Debta from Raipur, Chhattisgarh, bought himself his Maruti Suzuki Grand Vitara Strong Hybrid in June 2024 for around Rs 20.5 lakh on-road. According to him, the dealership told him that the SUV was manufactured in December 2023. At the time, he bought it immediately because he urgently needed a new vehicle.
For nearly five months, the SUV performed normally. However, on November 11, 2024, immediately after refuelling, the vehicle suffered from engine trouble as he was leaving the petrol pump. And because he was unsure about the cause, he drove it straight to the dealership.
During the inspection, the technicians drained fuel from the tank into a transparent bottle. At the time, Dr Debta noticed an unusual liquid settled at the bottom while petrol floated above it. Dr Debta emphasized that, at the time, he had never heard of E20 petrol or ethanol-related issues. The dealership informed him that the fuel appeared to be adulterated and advised him to approach the petrol pump.

Dr Debta then contacted the petrol pump where he had filled fuel. However, the fuel station responded and stated that there was nothing wrong with the petrol being sold. According to him, the petrol pump pointed out that no other customer had reported similar complaints and directed him back to the dealership.
This then started a frustrating cycle for the doctor, and it continued for months. Every time the SUV stalled, the dealership emptied the fuel tank, blamed contaminated fuel, cleaned the fuel system, and asked him to refill petrol. The petrol pump, on the other hand, was constantly saying that its fuel met quality standards and denied any responsibility.
The doctor, in his complaint, explained that, in the beginning, the SUV stalled after travelling around 60 km. However, as time passed, the problem became much worse, and eventually, the vehicle began stopping after barely 10 km of driving. Dr Debta also claimed that every time fuel was drained from the tank, a white curd-like substance could be seen settling at the bottom of the bottle.
Even a technical team from Maruti Suzuki reportedly visited Raipur to inspect the vehicle but could not permanently resolve the issue. By March 2025, Dr Debta had lost patience. He parked the SUV at the dealership and walked away.

Now, as he was not getting any permanent solution, Dr Debta approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Raipur. The Commission then ruled in his favour and stated that the vehicle supplied to him was not compatible with E20 petrol.
It then directed the dealership to either replace the SUV with an E20-compatible vehicle or refund the complete purchase amount, including taxes and registration charges. The Commission also awarded Rs 1 lakh as compensation for the mental harassment caused to the customer.
According to Dr Debta, the court proceedings also revealed that, although he had been told the vehicle was manufactured in December 2023, it was actually built in January 2023. The Commission noted that this vehicle predated the mandatory E20 compliance norms introduced from April 1, 2023. It then linked this to the problems he experienced.

Maruti Suzuki, however, has strongly disputed the Commission’s order. In its official statement, the company said the customer’s Grand Vitara was fully E20 compatible and that this information was clearly mentioned in the owner’s manual. It also stated that evidence collected from the vehicle pointed towards fuel contamination rather than any manufacturing defect.
The company also stated that many important facts were not considered during the delivery of the judgment and confirmed that it will challenge the order before the appropriate higher court. Recently, Maruti Suzuki Senior Executive Officer (Corporate Affairs) Rahul Bharti also stated that the company has extensively tested E20 petrol across its vehicle lineup. He also stated that even many older Maruti models originally certified for E10 fuel can safely operate on E20 petrol.

As stated above, the repeated breakdowns have caused Dr Debta to switch to an electric vehicle. He explained that this entire issue has affected him financially and has also impacted his work as a doctor. He explained that, since he regularly travels to meet patients, these unexpected engine stallings created concerns and caused him significant mental stress.
According to him, the dealership even suggested replacing the engine at a cost of around Rs 5.3 to 5.5 lakh. However, it reportedly added that it could not guarantee that the problem would not return afterwards. So, as he was left with no confidence in the vehicle, he decided to move to an electric car.
Interestingly, despite his personal experience, Dr Debta has not generalised his case against E20 petrol itself. He says his experience may have been unique to his own vehicle. He added that he believes the final answer will only come after higher courts examine the technical evidence presented by both sides.
Source
Comments are closed.