Maruti Udyog Limited vs MADAN LAL

THIS appeal alongwith Appeal No. 991 of 2000, which was instituted on 31.8.2000 arises out of the same order dated 7.7.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum) and both these appeals are being disposed of with this composite order.

BRIEF facts taken from the record are that respondent No. 1-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had purchased Maruti Car 800 CC from respondent No. 2-opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter called the opposite party No. 1), who was authorised dealer of the manufacturer i.e. appellant-opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter called the opposite party No. 2). The Invoice No. 193 dated 19.5.1998 was issued by the opposite party No. 1. There was guarantee/warranty for the period of one year. However, from the very beginning of the purchase, there was front side heavy noise from engine of the car. On 28.10.1998 the car was got checked by opposite party No. 1. Tension assembly timing belt, belt timing was replaced by opposite party No. 1, but even then the defect was not removed. The complainant had made a request to opposite parties for rectifying the defect but of no avail. The car had a manufacturing defect, which according to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Prayer was made in the complaint for replacement of the car and for refund of the amount of consideration with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith costs of the complaint. Opposite party No. 1 had submitted in the reply that the car was brought to its workshop on 28.10.1998. It was reported by the complainant that there was defect of timing tensioner. Upon checking and testing the tensioner assembly along with belt timing was changed and the car was delivered to the complainant to his satisfaction. Thereafter, no complaint was reported. The car was brought to the workshop again for third free service on 15.1.1999. It was reported that there was some front side noise, steering noise, underbody noise and rattling of door. The service and job was carried out promptly and all the defects were removed. The complainant had never reported any defect in the car at any time thereafter. The warranty period had expired on 25.6.1999. Deficiency on the part of opposite party No. 1 was denied.

Opposite party No. 2 vide separate reply had pleaded that the defects, which were pointed out by the complainant at the workshop of opposite party No. 1 were not in the nature of manufacturing defect. Once the defects were rectified the replacement of the old Maruti Standard as distinguished from replacing parts would be outside the scope and purview of the warranty obligations. It was then submitted in the reply by opposite party No. 2 that on 28.10.1998 when the car was brought at the workshop of opposite party No. 1 the complainant had demanded checking of timing tensioner and wheel alignment. The tensioner assembly alongwith belt timing was replaced. On 15.1.1999 the car was brought with the report that there was some front side noise, steering noise, underbody noise and rattling of the door. These defects were also rectified. There was thus, no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the pleadings and documents on record, District Forum allowed the complaint. Opposite party No. 2 was directed to replace the entire engine of the car. It was further directed that opposite party No. 2 shall send the new sealed engine to opposite party No. 1 within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. The opposite party No. 1 was ordered to replace the engine and if so advised, could collect the expenses from opposite party No. 2. It was further directed that the complainant shall be informed by the opposite parties and he shall take the car to opposite party No. 1 for replacement of the engine. It was further ordered that complainantsshall be paid costs of Rs. 1,000/- by opposite party No. 2. Hence, this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 and have gone through the record with their assistance.

WE have carefully gone through the order of the District Forum. WE do not find any infirmity in the order. Opposite party No. 1 has admitted in the reply that when the car was brought on 28.10.1998 it was reported by the complainant that there was defect of timing tensioner. The tensioner assembly along with belt timing was replaced. Even then running of the car was not smooth and on 15.1.1999, it was reported to opposite party No. 1 by the complainant that there was front side noise, steering noise, underbody noise and rattling of the door. Condition of the car and the defects pointed out and found by the complainant have been further corroborated by the report Exhibit C8 of Shri M.S. Kohli, Surveyor. Relevant part of the report Exhibit C8, reads as under : "The car engine was minutely checked by me even after driving the car personally for about 100 kilometres. The timing cover plate of the engine was also opened by me and my observations are as under : ''While for forging the crank shaft in assembly line there was a little band on the front side of crank shaft where belt tensioner is fitted and drive gear is fitted. The engine gives noise. One belt and tensioner was replaced by Hira Automobiles Ltd., Authorised Maruti Dealer, Patiala vide Invoice No. 013387 dated 28.10.1998 whereas crank shaft also requires replacement which was shown to me to overcome the manufacturing defect but the main problem can only be solved by replacement of the crank shaft meaning thereby that just complete engine of the car in question is required to be replaced that to by the manufacturer only, and the best course, according to my mind, is to replace the vehicle itself. The problem in the engine cannot be solved with the replacement of belt and tensioner as experienced by Hira Automobiles as there is a little bend in the front side of crank shaft and with the movement of belt the tensioner is tightened due to erratic movement of belt which drives came shaft''."

Mr. Kohli in his report has clearly stated that the entire engine was required to be replaced. The District Forum has rightly relied upon the report Exhibit C8 of the Surveyor, Shri M.S. Kohli indicating in its order that despite the report of the Surveyor, the opposite parties did not make any effort to get the vehicle tested by any other qualified mechanic or engineer to outweigh the report of Mr. M.S. Kohli. On the basis of the record and particularly the report of the Surveyor, the District Forum has rightly held that the car suffered from manufacturing defect and the defect could be rectified only by replacing of the engine, which according to us is just and proper. In view of our discussion, made above, as we have already stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum, this Appeal (No. 969 of 2000) is thus, dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/-.

SO far as Appeal No. 991 of 2000 is concerned, though the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the appellant/complainant and ordered the replacement of the entire engine by holding that the car suffered from manufacturing defect and the defect could be rectified only by replacing of the engine, but has not awarded any damages and litigation expenses to the complainant, as prayed for in the complaint. After taking the overall view of the matter, we find it proper and just to award Rs. 5,000/- as damages and Rs. 4,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Accordingly, Appeal No. 991 of 2000 is allowed and the order of the District Forum dated 7.7.2000 is modified to the extent stated above. Ordered accordingly.