Hyderabad Senior Citizen Wins ₹22 Lakh Refund in Toyota Case
HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has ordered Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd and its former authorised dealer, Yashoda Krishna Automobiles (P) Ltd, to refund ₹22,99,250 to a 64-year-old woman.
The woman had paid the full amount for a Toyota Innova Crysta but never received the vehicle. The commission also awarded ₹10,000 for mental agony, financial stress and suffering. It directed the companies to pay another ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The commission passed the order on August 27, 2026, in C.C. No. 134/2025. The companies must comply within 45 days of receiving the order. If they fail, the refund will attract 9% annual interest from June 3, 2025, the date of the complaint, until payment.
Woman paid over ₹22 lakh for Innova Crysta
Chinayelka Vanita of Habsiguda approached Yashoda Krishna Automobiles on February 3, 2021, to buy a Toyota Innova Crysta 2.4 ZX Automatic SUV.
She initially paid ₹50,000 as a booking advance. She then paid ₹10 lakh on May 25, 2021, and another ₹10 lakh on January 6, 2022. The commission noted that Nishanth Chinayelka’s bank account was used for these two payments.
Vanita also took a ₹12 lakh vehicle loan from Toyota Financial Services India Pvt Ltd on January 31, 2022. The loan required a monthly EMI of ₹29,280 for 48 months. She paid five EMIs. Despite paying ₹22,99,250, Vanita never received the car.
2023 email helped defeat Toyota’s limitation argument
Toyota argued that Vanita filed the complaint too late. It said the cause of action arose either when she booked the car in February 2021 or when she made the final payment in January 2022.
Vanita filed the consumer complaint on June 3, 2025. The commission rejected Toyota’s argument after examining an email dated July 4, 2023. Nishanth Chinayelka sent the email to Toyota Financial Services regarding the loan EMIs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor was also copied on the email. The commission found that the email showed the car had still not been delivered as of July 4, 2023. It therefore held that Vanita had filed the complaint within the statutory two-year period. The commission said keeping the customer’s money without delivering the vehicle amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
Toyota denied responsibility for dealer’s failure
Toyota argued that Yashoda Krishna Automobiles operated as an independent dealer under a principal-to-principal agreement.
According to Toyota, the dealer handled vehicle bookings, collected advances and delivered vehicles independently.
The manufacturer also argued that Vanita had no direct contractual relationship with Toyota because she made the payments to the dealer.
Toyota pointed out that it had terminated the dealership on June 1, 2022. It said the termination letter directed the dealer to settle pending customer commitments, including booked vehicles, by August 31, 2022.
The company also relied on a public notice issued on June 16, 2022. The notice announced the dealership’s termination and provided a customer helpline and alternative service arrangements.
Toyota cited previous judgments, including Tata Motors vs Antonio Paulo Vaz and Honda Cars India Ltd vs Sudesh Berry, to argue that a manufacturer should not face liability for an independent dealer’s actions.
Commission says Toyota knew about pending bookings
The commission rejected Toyota’s defence. It noted that Vanita booked the vehicle and made her payments before Toyota terminated the dealership. More importantly, Toyota’s own termination letter directed the dealer to settle pending customer bookings.
The commission said this showed that Toyota knew about the pending commitments and had oversight over their settlement. It also noted that consumers buying expensive vehicles rely on the manufacturer’s brand, goodwill and reputation, along with the dealer.
The commission held that Toyota could not completely distance itself from the dealer’s failure while allowing the dealer to operate under its brand. The June 16, 2022 public notice also worked against Toyota’s defence. The manufacturer had offered a helpline and said it would facilitate customer commitments after ending the dealership.
Based on these circumstances, the commission held Toyota’s liability to be co-extensive with that of the dealer.
Dealer remained absent during proceedings
Yashoda Krishna Automobiles did not file a written version or take part in the proceedings.
The commission forfeited its right to file a written version on December 5, 2025, and proceeded against the dealer ex-parte. The commission examined Vanita as PW1. Deepak Rao K.R. appeared on behalf of Toyota.
The complainant produced bank records, Toyota Financial Services documents, payment statements and the July 4, 2023 email. Toyota relied on its power of attorney, dealership agreement, termination letter, newspaper publication and indemnity provisions in the dealership agreement.
The commission ultimately ordered Toyota and Yashoda Krishna Automobiles to jointly and severally refund ₹22,99,250, along with ₹10,000 compensation and ₹5,000 litigation costs.
