Maruti Udyog Limited vs M.L.Gupta

WE propose to decide Appeal No. 133 of 2000 filed by Maruti Udyog Limited through its Regional Manager and Appeal No. 109 of 2000 filed by M/s. Modern Automobiles through its General Manager i.e. opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 against one and the same order dated 2.12.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No. 1144 of 1995.

MARUTI Udyog Limited, 11th Floor, Jeevan Prakash 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001 through its Regional Manager, MARUTI Udyog Limited, Chandigarh has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as the C.P. Act) against the order passed by the District Forum-I dated 2.12.1999. The District Forum-I has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent - Shri M.L. Gupta and awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- besides costs amounting to Rs. 1,000/-. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid two appeals, may briefly be narrated as under :

The respondent No. 1/complainant after purchasing the Maruti 800 AC Car failed to get AC of the Car functioning satisfactorily even after three free services during the warranty period as a result of which he filed a complaint in the District Forum-I and prayed that he be compensated with a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- for the value of the AC, loss of health, travelling expenses for hiring AC Car for going to Ludhiana, to Chandigarh and back, mental torture, agony and expenses attributable for taking the vehicle to opposite party No. 3 for getting the A.C. checked up repeatedly due to fault.

IT has been averred in the complaint that the respondent No. 1/complainant purchased Maruti 800 AC Car bearing Chassis No. 778145, Engine No. 1172485 from opposite party No. 3/respondent No. 2, the authorized agent of appellant/opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,13,362.18 vide Invoice No. 56565 C.A. dated 3.7.1995. Copy of the bill is enclosed as Annexure C-1. After purchasing the said vehicle, it has been averred by the complainant/respondent No. 1 that he visited the office of opposite party No. 3/respondent No. 2, M/s. Modern Automobiles, Chandigarh on 23rd August, 1995 for getting the AC checked up from their garage vide Job Card No. 33937 but the opposite party No. 3/respondent No. 2 on checking found that the AC was not functioning and found the gas leakage and assured the complainant that the gas was not available on that day. However, the complainant/respondent No. 1 was asked to visit their premises once again for getting the A.C. set right on 25th August, 1995. The respondent No. 1/complainant visited the opposite party No. 3/respondent No. 2 on 25th August, 1995 for getting the AC checked/rectified. The gas was filled on that day vide Job Card No. 33937 and also charged Rs. 140/- illegally vide Bill No. 25592 from the respondent No. 1/complainant and then again the respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 assured the respondent No. 1/complainant that the AC of the car will work satisfactorily. The respondent No. 1/complainant, it has been averred in the para 8 of the complaint, visited the Company/garage of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 for third due service on 23rd October, 1995 on that day, also the respondent No. 1/complainant made the same complaint with regard to non-functioning of the AC of the car and the opposite party No. 3/respondent No. 2 again found that the AC of the car was not working because of gas leakage vide Job Card No. 34960 vide Order No. 206. IT has further been averred by the respondent No. 1/complainant that AC of the car could not be set right on repeated requests/visits within the warranty period and every time the respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 assured the respondent No. 1/complainant that the same would be set right on the next visit, thus causing a mental harassment and torture to the respondent No. 1/complainant. As a result of the respondent No. 1/complainant suffered a great mental harassment, depression and loss his professional work and prayed in the complaint that he be compensated for a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The appellant is a manufacturer of cars and other utilities vehicles of various models, inter alia, Maruti 800, Omni, Gypsy, Zen and Esteem (for brevity called Maruti vehicles). It has been contended in the appeal that all vehicles sold by the appellant/respondent No. 1 undergo strict performance related quality inspections and are final check O.K. The appellant/opposite party No. 1 sells vehicles manufactured by it to its dealers against prevalent FOR price on principal to principal basis. After the despatch of Maruti vehicles from the factory, the appellant''s liability in respect of any defect in a vehicle is limited to the appellant''s obligations under Warranty Clause 4, which is reproduced as under : "4. Limitation : The warranty shall not apply to : (a)....................................... (b)....................................... (c)....................................... ........................................ ....................................... (o) For Maruti air-conditioned vehicles - V belts, hoses and gas leaks."

Clause 3 of warranty provides as under : "Maruti Warranty Obligation : .......... The owner is responsible for any repair or replacement which are not covered under warranty."

IT has been averred by the appellant/opposite party No. 1 that in order to avail the warranty services, the customer is required to bring his vehicle to any authorized dealer''s workshop. The dealers of the appellant/opposite party No. 1 deal with any claim made by the user within the four corners and purview of the provisions of warranty and if a job is not covered under warranty and the customer wishes to get it attended by the dealer, in that event the said job constitutes a separate contract for service between the customer and the dealer. Appellant/opposite party No. 1 is not privy to the contract for service of such nature. On 3.7.1995 the respondent No. 1/complainant took delivery of Maruti 800 AC car from respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3, namely M/s. Modern Automobiles, 4 MW, Industrial Area, Chandigarh in accordance with the terms of the sales contract with respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3. On 23.8.1995, respondent No. 1/complainant visited the workshop of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 whereby Job Order No. 33937 dated 23.8.1995 was opened and the demanded repair of the respondent No. 1/complainant was "air conditioner was not working properly - check and repair". On examination, the gas of the AC was found to have been leaked. Respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 asked the respondent No. 1/complainant to leave the car for necessary check of the AC system to establish the sources of leakage. However, respondent No. 1/complainant of his own volition did not leave the car and told respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 that he would come on some other day. The respondent No. 1/complainant, it has been averred in sub-para (viii) of para 2 of the appeal, visited the workshop of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 on 26.8.1995 when the gas in AC was filled and the respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 charged an appropriate amount towards gas filling as warranty of the appellant does not apply to gas leak. IT has further been averred that the respondent No. 1/complainant visited the workshop for third free service on 28.10.1995, the Job Order No. 34960 dated 26.10.1995 was opened. The demanded repairs, inter alia, were AC not working - check up and general check up. Before undertaking the service, the front man of the workshop during preliminary checking found that the AC was working properly. This was got personally checked by the respondent No. 1/complainant, who himself got the said job relating to the AC deleted from the job card. After 3rd service was done under the warranty, the complainant took delivery of the car after executing a satisfaction note in favour of the respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3. IT has further been averred in sub-para (x) of para 2 of the appeal that the respondent No. 1/complainant visited the workshop of the respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 on 6.12.1995 when the Job Order No. 35595 was opened and the demanded repairs job was fuel gauge not working properly. Respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 changed the fuel gauge under warranty after which the delivery of car was taken by the respondent No. 1/complainant by executing a satisfaction note in favour of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3. On February, 1996, it has been averred in sub-para (xi) of para 2 of the appeal, he filed a complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act in the District Forum-I that the respondent could not set right the AC of the car despite repeated visits within warranty period. He purportedly suffered inconvenience, discomfort and mental depression. Respondent No. 1/complainant alleged that the appellant/opposite party No. 1 and respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 be held responsible for deficiency in service. Respondent No. 1/complainant claimed compensation on account of value of fresh AC, loss of cases and health, mental torture and agony, travelling expenses for hiring AC Car for going to Ludhiana, Chandigarh and other places, expenses for taking the vehicle of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 for getting AC checked up, total amounting to Rs. 1,03,000/-. It has further been averred that District Forum-I has erred in observing that the complainant had to run time and again from Samrala to the premises of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 located at Chandigarh for getting the defects removed in AC, so he had to incur not only inconvenience but expenditure also for visiting the workshop of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 many times. The District Forum-I, it has been averred in para 3 of the appeal, failed to appreciate that on 23.8.1995, respondent No. 1/complainant visited the workshop of the respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 at about 2.45 p.m. when the vehicle was attended to and it was found that gas of AC had leaked. The vehicle required thorough check-up of AC system and respondent No. 1/complainant was requested to leave his car for carrying out the investigations regarding the gas leakage in the AC system. The respondent No. 1/complainant of his own volition left the premises without leaving the car. On 26.8.1995 respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 filled the gas on paid basis as per the Clause 4(o) of warranty. The District Forum-I, it has been averred, failed to appreciate that in terms of Clause 3 of warranty, respondent No. 1/complainant was responsible for any repair or replacement not covered under warranty. Subsequently, during third service on 20.10.1995, the respondent No. 1/complainant after personally checking got the job relating to AC deleted from the job cards as the functioning of AC was found to be O.K. Thereafter, when the vehicle of respondent No. 1/complainant reported on 6.12.1995, no problem relating to AC was pointed out by respondent No. 1/appellant. The District Forum-I has also failed to appreciate that even in a case to avail warranty service a customer himself is obliged to bring the vehicle at his own cost at the workshop of the dealer and for doing so, neither appellant/opposite party No. 1 nor respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 is obliged to reimburse the cost of petrol to him. Therefore, it has been averred that the observation by the District Forum-I that the respondent No. 1/appellant suffered inconvenience for getting the job done, is not covered under the warranty period provided by the appellant/opposite party No. 1. The District Forum-I has also failed to appreciate and consider that the respondent No. 1/complainant failed to establish or place any material on record before the District Forum-I which would show any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party No. 1. The appellant duly discharged its warranty obligations and the complaint of the impugned order ought to have been dismissed. In the end, it has been averred that the District Forum-I erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 6,000/- against the appellant/opposite party No. 1. The District Forum-I it has been alleged, failed to appreciate that there was no deficiency in rendering the warranty service on the part of appellant/opposite party No. 1 and the respondent No. 1/appellant had not suffered any harassment and inconvenience due to any act or representation of the appellant. The award of compensation as also the costs of Rs. 1,000/- is arbitrary and has no basis. Hence the impugned order of the District Forum-I be set aside. Upon filing of the appeal the notice was sent to the respondents. Mr. S.B. Vohra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant while respondent No. 1 has been represented by Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate appeared for the respondent No. 2. Record of the complaint case was summoned in triplicate from the District Forum-I. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. S.B. Vohra, Advocate contended that the duty of the manufacturer is to supply Maruti cars to the dealers and the consumer can thereafter go to any authorized dealer within the city to get three free services done within the warranty period. It is the duty of the respondent No. 2 - the dealer of the car to rectify the defect, if any, during the free services and warranty period. However, in case, there is any manufacturing defect, the appellant is fully responsible to rectify and replace that particular sample/component. The appellant is, therefore, not at all deficient in its services.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant and perusing the record of the complaint case, we find that the District Forum-I committed an error in appreciating the fact that AC when rectified on 25.8.1995 and the respondent No. 1/complainant himself was satisfied with the functioning of the AC and subsequently also during the third service the complaint of the AC was not registered except the fuel gauge faulty. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the appellant/opposite party No. 1. The District Forum-I has dealt with the complaint case in detail but failed to point out that the defective AC of the Maruti car in question was rectified and there was subsequent defect found in the AC of the car. The complainant/respondent No. 1 himself had deleted the defect of the AC during the second free service and issued "Satisfactory Certificate". Even in the third service, it was only the repair of the Speedometer Gauge and the defect of the AC was not pointed out.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of respondents. The District Forum-I had awarded Rs. 6,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant without any cogent and valid reason when the deficiency in service has not been established on the part of the opposite parties. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds on merit and the order of the District Forum-I is set aside. However, the costs shall be borne by the parties themselves. Appeal No. 109 of 2000 preferred by M/s. Modern Automobiles, respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 133 of 2000 and opposite party No. 3 in the order passed by the District Forum-I, arising out the same order of the District Forum-I, also succeeds on the reasons aforesaid and is allowed. The order of the District Forum-I is set aside. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeals allowed.