MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED vs MADAN LAL

THE complainant had approached District Forum that there was heavy noise from the front side of the engine of the car. The complainant had brought this to the notice of the opposite party No. 1 upon which tension assembly timing belt was replaced but the defect still persisted. The complainant prayed for replacement of car on the ground that it was suffering from manufacturing defect or for refund of the amount paid for the car with compensation of Rs. 10,000. The complainant had produced report of M.S. Kohli Automobiles and Mechanical Engineer and also an affidavit of M.S. Kohli besides production of job cards and other evidence. Opposite party No. 1 had placed reliance on the affidavit of Swaran Singh, Manager and copy of report dated 28.6.1999.

THE District Forum relied upon the report of M.S. Kohli and allowed the complaint by giving directions to opposite party No. 2 to replace the entire engine of the car. No compensation was awarded since the car had been used for some time and cost of Rs. 1,000 were ordered to be paid by opposite party No. 2.

THE order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission. The State Commission also relied upon the report of M.S. Kohli and confirmed the order of the District Forum and besides that Rs. 5,000 were awarded as damages, Rs. 4,000 for litigation expenses to the complainant. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the said order of the State Commission in revision. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. Before this Commission, the complainant had filed another inspection report dated 25.4.2005 of Satwant Motors. The said report is on the lines of M.S. Kohli and even wording thereof is almost similar. However, in order to resolve the controversy about the defects if any, in the vehicle, it was deemed necessary that the vehicle be got inspected. Accordingly, the following order was passed on 19.4.2005 by this Commission: "It appears that till today order dated 17.5.2004 is not complied with. Hence, complainant is directed to permit the authorized representative of the petitioner to inspect and verify with regard to the defects in the offending vehicle for which this petition is filed and file the report before this Commission within a period of one month from today. Complainant shall permit inspection of the vehicle by the inspector of the petitioner on 3.5.2005. Stand over to 24.5.2005 for directions."

Pursuant to the said directions, report of Sukh Jeewan Singh, Work Manager of M/s. Max Autos has been filed. The said reports reads as under : 1. "That as per the direction of this Hon''ble Commission dated 19.4.2004, I personally inspected the vehicle in question and the report is enclosed along with this affidavit.

That I personally checked the car R.C. No. P.B. 13F5343 bearing chassis No. 2155376 and Engine No. 3162649 in the cold and warm condition and found no excessive noise the Engine (Ignition Timing Belt or Tensioner Bearing).

I further submit that the car in question has run more than 41414 kms. The customer did not allow me to take the car to the workshop for a detailed in depth inspection.

I further submit that on the basis of the preliminary inspection, the car seems to be in good running condition and I did not find any manu -facturing defect or abnormal sound on its idling RPM and putting it on full throttle.

That I further ensure to undertake that if the Hon''ble Commission requires any further information the same would be provided."

FROM the above report, it is crystal clear that the car on inspection was found to be in good running condition and it did not find any manufacturing defect or abnormal sound on its idling RPM and putting it on full throttle. It was also found that there was no excessive noise from the engine and the vehicle by then had run more than 40,000 kms. The report also states that the customer did not allow to take the car to the workshop for a detailed in -depth inspection. No objection of any kind was filed by the complainant against the said report which was called by this Commission in accordance with Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the findings of the two Fora below that the vehicle had manufacturing defects and direction to replace the engine are hereby set aside. The revision is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to cost. R.P. allowed.