According to Sharma, she bought Pakelo Krypton XT LA-V SAE 5W-30 engine oil during scheduled services in January 2025 and January 2026.
The dealer allegedly used the oil on both occasions without warning her that doing so could affect the warranty.
However, Sharma alleged that her warranty claim was rejected because the engine oil had been procured externally.
Mahindra subsequently told her that using externally sourced engine oil could invalidate warranty coverage.
She claimed this restricted consumer choice and foreclosed competition in the aftermarket for lubricants and vehicle maintenance services.
The complaint was filed by one Bharti Sharma, who had purchased a Mahindra XUV700 vehicle from Delhi-based authorised dealer Sri Durga Automobiles in June 2024. She had also bought an extended warranty valid until July 2029.
According to Sharma, she bought Pakelo Krypton XT LA-V SAE 5W-30 engine oil during scheduled services in January 2025 and January 2026. The dealer allegedly used the oil on both occasions without warning her that doing so could affect the warranty.
Soon after the January 2026 service, the vehicle displayed a “check engine system” warning and suffered reduced acceleration. The dealer later diagnosed a defective turbocharger and gave an estimate of ₹50,000 for replacement and labour costs.
However, Sharma alleged that her warranty claim was rejected because the engine oil had been procured externally. Mahindra subsequently told her that using externally sourced engine oil could invalidate warranty coverage.
Sharma argued that the oil met Mahindra's specifications and accused the company of effectively forcing consumers to purchase lubricants through its authorised network. She claimed this restricted consumer choice and foreclosed competition in the aftermarket for lubricants and vehicle maintenance services.
