ATUL BHARDWAJ vs Maruti Udyog Ltd.

FEELING aggrieved of the order dated 10.7.2001 passed by District Forum, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/677/99-entitled Shri Atul Bhardwaj v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking replacement of the Maruti vehicle which was purchased by him from M/s. Sikand Motors or in the alternative return of the price of the car for its multifarious manufacturing defects was dismissed, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

PERUSAL of the impugned order shows that the District Forum has mainly relied on the job card Ex. R.1 which pertains to a date beyond the period of warranty and has observed that brake problem which the complainant had been raising again and again does not find any mention in this job card and, therefore, the respondent is not liable to carry out any repair or replace any part free of charge. Apart from this, the District Forum has also observed that defects pointed out by the appellant are not inherent defects or manufacturing defects which may warrant the replacement of the car. The vehicle was purchased by the appellant on 9.7.1997. On 5.8.1997 i.e., approximately after one month when the car had run about 745 kms. the appellant took it to the respondent for first service and following defects were found by the respondent itself: (i) Steering wobbling while brake apply (ii) Deaf spring noisy (iii) All doors noisy (iv) Pick up low (v) Engine missing problem (vi) Both sliding doors opening/closing hard

Subsequently the appellant had taken the car for mainly removal of defects of steering wobbling while brake apply and missing of the engine. There are as many as 9/10 job cards during the period of 10 months. In every job card defects of steering wobbling during brake apply and engine missing were constant and could not be removed. So much so defect of all the doors being noisy, pick up being low, jittering and juddering of brake and clutch being hard also could not be removed. When appellant brought non-removal of the above defects to the notice of General Manager of Maruti Udyog Ltd. by way of letter dated 23.9.1998, General Manger vide communication dated 7.10.1998 informed the appellant that they were deputing their Service Engineer from the factory to look into the complaint and resolve his problems. But nothing was done.

THE District Forum fell in grave error in referring the job card Ex. R.1 pertaining to the date after expiry of warranty period and observing that major defects were neither inherent nor were the manufacturing defects. It is unfortunate that provider of service should treat the consumers/customers so badly. Even during the short span of 10 months, vehicle was taken to the workshop 10 times to get the defect of steering wobbling during brake apply, missing of engine and umpteen other defects removed but none of the defects could be removed. So much so Service Engineer sent from the factory could not cure these defects. From these job cards and series of visits by the respondent no other inference can be derived or drawn than that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. The view taken by the District Forum that a person is not entitled to any compensation or replacement of the vehicle or parts after the expiry of the warranty period free of charge is erroneous when viewed in the background of more than ten job cards and visits during 10 months. In the instant case, the vehicle when taken up for first service was found to be suffering from inherent manufacturing defects and all those defects could not be removed to the satisfaction of the appellant. In such a situation warranty period has no meaning nor has it any application.

PROVIDER of service must know that they survive and thrive because of the customers and the consumers. If they start treating their consumers who provide earning to them like this, it will be a sad day. The sole circumstance of non-removal of inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle on as many as ten visits during 10 months and deputing its Service Engineer is sufficient to render the warranty period meaningless. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that vehicle has already run 40,000 kms. and, therefore, it can neither be replaced nor can the value of the vehicle be refunded does not have any substance. Vehicle was being used with inherent manufacturing defects as there was no other option left with the appellant than to go on using the vehicle though grudgingly and with great mental agony and anguish. Conduct of the respondent in not removing the defects for long leading to the inference that these were inherent defects persuades us to order for the return of the value of the vehicle as its replacement of directions to remove the defects would not be feasible or a conciliable position. Thus the only solution to this problem is to allow the appeal and give directions to the respondent to refund the value of the vehicle to the appellant within one month of receiving back the vehicle in question from the appellant. The interest is not being ordered because the vehicle has already run 40,000 kms. and used by the appellant may be under compulsion and unsatisfactorily but compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded for mental agony and harassment the petitioner suffered by taking the vehicle time and again to the respondent, wasting his time and money for getting the defects removed besides cost of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation. In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. Appeal allowed.