Maruti Udyog Limited vs NARENDER KUMAR VERMA

A Maruti 800 car was bought by the complainant Narinder Kumar from the dealer Pasco Automobiles, Chandigarh on 18. 11. 1997. It is a case of the complainant that the Maruti car was giving trouble right from the day of its purchase. The complaints related to (a) 1st gear hard, (b) abnormal sound from engine at 40 kilometres speed, and (c) self-starting problem. During the first service they were repaired and delivered on 28. 11. 1997. The complainant was surprised to see that major parts of the engine were replaced twice. During the second free service between 2000-2500 Kms on 29. 12. 1997 the complainant pointed out the following defects viz. starting trouble, gear shifting trouble, low pick-up, defective wiper blades, rear door rubber loose and indicator level not working properly. Though it was taken delivery after repairs on 30. 12. 1997 the car was found to be defective and was giving strange noise in the engine when running above 40 kilometres speed. The pick-up continued to be slow, average was low, starting trouble was continuing with abnormal rattling sound coming from the doors in the chassis. This being a clear case of defects in the new car he filed a complaint before District Forum with prayer to replace the car by a new one and to pay him compensation of Rs. 5,000.

ON contest the District Forum allowed the complaint with the consolidated cost of Rs. 5,500 including compensation for harassment and directed the opposite parties Maruti Udyog and Pasco Automobiles to replace the car with a new car of an equivalent model. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited as well as M/s. Pasco Automobiles filed appeals before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Union Territory of Chandigarh. The State Commission heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and passed an order dismissing the appeals. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the manufacturers and the dealer have filed the revision petitions before us.

Mr. K. P. S. Rao learned Counsel for the petitioner in RP No. 2153 of 2000 submitted that the complainant did not come for third free service after the vehicle was repaired during the second service and it was incumbent upon the complainant to come for third service after stipulated kilometres run. He did not bring the car for third service at all. The State Commission has held that as three days'' time was taken for engine replacement and repairs there was a manufacturing defect which is erroneous. During the hearing before the District Forum complainant did not point out to any specific manufacturing defect.

MR. T. K. Ganju, Senior Advocate appearing for Maruti Udyog submitted that the complainant has not given any written complaint to Maruti Udyog after the second service. The basic complaint of the complainant was relating to engine noise which was attended to promptly. He read out the clause relating to the manufacturer''s warranty which is as follows: "3. Maruti''s Warranty Obligation if any defect (s) should be found in a Maruti vehicle within the term stipulated above, Maruti''s only obligation is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour, when Maruti acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. The owner is responsible for any repair or replacements which are not covered by this warranty. "

He submitted that this case is covered by the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr. , II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC)= (2006) 4 SCC 644. Findings:

FIRSTLY, the warranty clause quoted by the learned Senior Counsel is relevant to the case. Maruti''s warranty is limited to replacement of certain parts which are found to be defective with a new part or equivalent at no cost to the owner, if such defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. In this case the petitioners have replaced the parts found to be defective. The consumer/complainant has not chosen to approach the dealer for the third free service which is a normal thing for any consumer. We do not know whether the complainant was fed up of defects noticed by him within a few days of his purchase of new car. The complainant has filed the affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Dewan, qualified Graduate Engineer engaged in the profession of repair and maintenance of Maruti Service Station in Sector-11, Panchkula. Relevant parts of his affidavit reads as follows: "3. I have seen the invoice/ cash memo No. 033851 dated 28. 11. 1997 issued by M/s. Pasco Automobiles, 177-D, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, in respect of 1st free service of Maruti car bearing Chassis No. 1167405 and Engine No. 1579265. 4. In my professional opinion and having vast experience in the field, after the replacement of major parts and reconditioning of Engine twice the performance and value of a new vehicle considerably decreases and reconditioning of the engine of a brand new car sharply reduces the market value of the vehicle and affects the performance of the vehicle. "

THIS engineer has not been cross-examined. Hence his evidence has gone unrebutted.

IN Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr. (supra), Apex Court has relied upon Clause-3 of the Manual relating to warranty obligation which has been quoted earlier in this order. Para-9 of this judgment reads as follows: "9. The Commission and the High Court have relied on the so-called admission of the appellant in para 3 of the objections filed before the Commission. In various documents, more particularly the letter dated 19. 2. 1997 written by respondent 1 to the appellant, it is clearly stated that the appellant had indicated that downing of the engine was necessary to trace the problem. There was no agreement to replace the engine system. Additionally, it is not disputed by learned Counsel for respondent 1 that when the appellant had asked the vehicle to be brought for the aforesaid purpose respondent 1 had not done so. To infer that there was any manufacturing defect in the said background is without any foundation. "

The Supreme Court in this case had issued following directions: " (1) On respondent 1 taking the vehicle in question to the authorised service centre of the appellant at Jammu within three weeks, the defective part, that is, clutch assembly shall be replaced. Respondent 1 shall not be required to pay any charge for the replacement. (2) In addition, respondent 1 shall be entitled to receive a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the appellant for cost of travel to Karnal which admittedly was wrongly advised by the appellant, for the inconvenience caused to respondent No. 1 on account of the acts of the appellant and respondent 2 and the cost of litigation. "

At this point of time order for repair and replacement of any defective part cannot be made.

Keeping in view of the above judgment and also the affidavit filed by the qualified Graduate Engineer we allow the revision petitions filed by the petitioners partially and direct the Maruti Udyog Limited to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation and cost to the complainant. Revision petitions are disposed of in above terms. R. Ps. disposed of.