Bizarre: Angry Hyundai Alcazar Owner Sues Shahrukh Khan, Deepika Padukone

Written By: Neeraj Padmakumar
Published: August 28, 2025 at 01:16 AMUpdated: Updated: August 28, 2025 at 01:16 AM
 review

In a wild turn of events, a faulty Hyundai Alcazar has made Bollywood’s biggest stars- Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone face the legal heat. The Bharatpur police filed an FIR against the two after Kirti Singh, a lawyer, came up with a petition. It accuses the actors of marketing defective vehicles and also names Hyundai company's Managing Director Unsoo Kim, Whole Time Director and Chief Operating Officer Tarun Garg, and the owners of the concerned showroom for selling the lawyer a ‘faulty car’. Police have begun an investigation based on the petition.

What Really Happened?

Kirti Singh bought the Alcazar SUV in June 2022. For the uninformed, the Alcazar is a three-row SUV based on the Creta. Singh paid a sum of Rs 23,97353 for it. The purchase was made from Malwa Auto Sales Private Limited in Sonipat, Haryana.

Singh took a car loan of Rs 10,03,699 for the new-car purchase. The rest of the price was paid in cash. The lawyer took delivery of the brand-new SUV on June 14. He says that at the time of delivery, the showroom staff promised him that there wouldn’t be any issues with the vehicle, and further reassured him that they would be responsible if something pops up.

deepika padukone shah rukh khan fir by kirti singh for faulty hyundai alcazar

Image Source: BhaskarEnglish

According to the FIR, Singh started facing issues with the car 6-7 months after the purchase. He says that the vehicle started developing ‘technical faults’. When driving on the highway, if he tries to accelerate, the vehicle would start to vibrate without actually getting to higher speeds.

The RPM increases and a malfunction sign appears on the instrument cluster. Clearly, this can be dangerous. The FIR says that this fault has put the life of the complainant and his family at risk several times.

shah rukh khan hyundai india

Singh approached the dealer, citing his grievance. He was reportedly told that the aforementioned issue was a ‘manufacturing defect’ and that they wouldn’t be able to rectify the same. The lawyer said that the dealer staff even suggested a strange fix that they said would partially address the issue- park the car in a safe space when the issue occurs, and keep the engine running at 2000 rpms for about an hour. This they said, would reset the engine malfunction warning and allow the vehicle to continue its journey.

FIR against shah rukh khan deepika padukone hyundai india

Image: The FIR (Source: BhaskarEnglish)

Singh added that this was a temporary fix, and the issue kept returning more frequently. Frustrated, Singh asked the dealership to resolve the issue completely or replace the car. They, however, refused to do so. The entire series of events reportedly led to heavy financial, physical and mental burden for the affected family.

Angry, Singh filed a petition at Bharatpur’s Mathura Gate police station accusing the dealer and Hyundai India’s leadership of cheating and criminal breach of trust. He accuses that the dealer staff were already aware of the issue, and hid it from him at the time of the purchase.

Why Sue The Actors?

deepika padukone shah rukh khan fir by kirti singh for faulty hyundai alcazar

Shah Rukh Khan has long been associated with Hyundai India. He has done several campaigns with the car company and was even seen in the Alcazar’s TV commercial. Deepika Padukone has also been a brand ambassador of the Korean giant and was seen in the ad films of the new Alcazar. These endorsements seem to have led to them being named in the FIR.

Singh even said that he made the purchase based on advertisements featuring them. (It should however, be noted that Deepika was roped in only in 2023!)

Under the Indian law, brand ambassadors can be held accountable for defective products that the endorse or promote. Under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, they can face fines and legal heat if the products turn out to be faulty or misleading.