Maruti Udyog Limited vs NARINDER KUMAR VERMA

THE complainant Mr. Narender Kumar r/o House No. 52, Sector 10, Panchkula purchased a new Maruti 800 Standard Car from the opposite parties i.e. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) manufacturer and M/s. Pasco .Automobiles, Pasco House, 177-D, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-Dealer on 18.11.1997. THE complainant found that the Maruti Car was giving trouble right from the day of its purchase. THE opposite parties could not satisfy him with the repairs during the warranty period, hence he filed a Complaint No 67 of 1998 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 5.3.1998 and prayed that this complaint be allowed and the respondent may kindly be ordered to replace the defective car in question by a new one of similar nake, i.e. 800 Standard Maruti Car free from any defect and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental torture, harassment and financial injury to the complainant. THE District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh allowed the complaint with consolidated costs of Rs. 5,500/ - including the compensation for harassment undergone by the complainant and directed the opposite parties to replace the car sold to the complainant on 18.11.1997 with a new car of equivalent model.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the respondent No. 1-M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, the manufacturer has attempted this appeal. The appellant is a manufacturer of Maruti Cars and other utility vehicles, inter alia, Maruti 800, Omni, Gypsy, Zen and Esteem. The appellant provides a warranty to the effect that during the validity of warranty the appellant''s only obligation is to repair or replace any part shown to be defective with a new part or the equivalent at no costs to the owner for parts or labour, when appellant acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. It has been averred by the appellant that in order to avail warranty service a customer is required to bring his vehicle to the workshop of any authorised dealer of the appellant who is obliged to test, examine, diagnose any fault demanded by a customer, namely the same and during the currency of warranty provided benefits to the customer under the provisions of warranty. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and the respondent/complainant Shri Narender Kumar Verma and have carefully perused the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- II, U.T., Chandigarh and the record of the complaint case. We now proceed to examine the rival contentions of the parties. Briefly the complainant Mr. Narender Kumar Verma filed a Complaint No. 67 of 1998 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 5.3.1998 through its Counsel Mr. B.S. Verma, Advocate. He has averred in the complaint that he purchased a new Maruti Car 800 Standard, Chassis No. 11674054, Engine No. 1579265 from the respondent No. 2-M/s. Pasco Automobiles, an authorised dealer of respondent No. 1-M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited for Rs. 2,02,284.36, delivery of the said car was given to the complainant on 18.11.1997. It bears Registration No. HR-03-B-3861 (Annexure P-1). Immediately, after purchase of the car, respondent/ complainant noticed that the first gear was hard and it gave abnormal sound from its engine while it was above 40 km. speed and there was self starting problem. The first service of the car was carried out on 24.11.1997 by respondent No. 2. The defects noticed during the period 18.11.1997 to 24.11.1997 were pointed out and those were recorded on the Job Order No. 0059087 dated 24.11.1997 (Annexure P-2) as under : "(a) 1st gear hard. (b) Abnormal Wound from Engine about 40 KM speed. (c) Self starting problem."

The respondent No. 2-dealer intimated the respondent No. 1/complainant on 24.11.1997 that the car will be delivered after service the next day, i.e. 25.11.1997 and finally it was delivered after repairs on 28.11.1997 after number of telephone calls and personal visits to the dealer workshop. The complainant was stunned to see that major parts to the engine had been replaced twice and the engine had been reconditioned two times in a span of five days which is evident from the details contained in the Cash Memo No. 3385 dated 28.11.1997 raised by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure P-3). The respondent/complainant took the car to the respondent No. 2 for 2nd Free Service, i.e. between 2000 to 2500 km on 29.12.1997 and pointed out the defects in the vehicle as under : "(a) Starting Shifting trouble. (b) Gear Shifting trouble. (c) Low pick up. (d) Defective wiper blades. (e) Rear door rubber loose. (f) Indicator lever not working properly."

The copy of job work dated 29.12.1997 has been attached as Annexure P-4. The dealer of the car after 2nd service delivered the car back to the complainant on 30.12.1997 and since then the car in question had been found defective and was giving strange noise in the engine, when running above 40 km. speed. It has further been averred by the complainant that its pick-up was low, average was low and it had starting trouble, defective indicator lever, abnormal rattling sound coming from front door and side doors in the chassis. He had pointed out that these were clear indications that the car had manufacturing defects and in spite of replacement of major parts of the engine and reconditioning it twice, the manufacturing defects in the car could not be removed and the car required replacement by a new car. The compensation prayed by the complainant/respondent in the District Forum was to replace the car of the complainant by new one and to pay him compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for selling defective car and also causing him mental and financial injury.

In reply the respondent No. 2- M/s. Pasco Automobiles averred that respondent No. 1 Mr. Narender Kumar Verma purchased a roadworthy brand new Maruti 800 car from respondent No. 2-M/s. Pasco Automobiles in terms of sales contract with respondent No 2 on 18.11.1997 after satisfying himself with its merchantable quality. On 24.11.1997 after driving the vehicle for 940 kms., respondent No. 1 Mr. Narender Kumar Verma brought the same to the workshop of respondent No. 2-M/s. Pasco Automobiles for first free service. The repairs demanded by respondent No. 1-Company were, namely, gear hard, abnormal sound from engine, when driving the vehicle above 40 kms. per hour and self starter to be checked for starting trouble.

ALL the aforesaid demanded repairs were duly attended to by the respondent No. 2-M/s. Pasco Automobiles. The engine noise was duly rectified and the performance of the vehicle was found satisfactory. Respondent-complainant took delivery of the vehicle after executing a satisfaction note in favour of the dealer. The respondent-complainant did not point out the same noise in the subsequent 2nd free service on 29.12.1997. On 29.12.1997, the respondent-complainant brought his vehicle for second free service at the workshop of the dealer. He demanded repairs, namely viper blade not properly washing-check, RHS rear door rubber loose and adjustment of clutch. The said jobs were routine maintenance jobs necessitated as a resu''t of the user of the vehicle. The dealer of the car duly carried out second service. The demand repairs were properly attended to after which respondent-complainant took delivery of the vehicle. The dealer has further averred that it is pertinent to note that the respondent-complainant never pointed out any problem with respect to the engine. No problem with respect to the performance of vehicle was observed by the dealer M/s. Pasco Automobiles, when the vehicle was brought for second free service.

IN February, 1998, the respondent-complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh alleging that the vehicle had manufacturing defects. On the basis of said allegations, the respondent No. 1 (manufacturer) prayed that his vehicle be replaced. The appellant filed its reply to the said complaint and denied the allegations made in the complaint. The appellant has averred in his appeal that the District Forum failed to appreciate and hear that there was no averment in the complaint to show that the appellant committed a breach of warranty obligation for manufacturing defect found in any component during the warranty period. The obligation of the appellant was limited to the extent of carrying out repairs or replacing parts, which may be shown to have a defect attributable to faulty material or poor workmanship. At the time of first service in order to rectify the demanded were the engine noise the parts necessary to rectify rectified by the dealer without any costs to respondent No. 1 /complainant on account of the spares or the labour charges. At the time of second service no problem with respect to engine was pointed out by the respondent No. 1/ complainant. It has been further averred by the appellant that the District Forum-II, failed to appreciate and consider that the vehicle was suffering from the manufacturing defect. The impugned order of the District Forum-II is based on mere surmises, conjectures, presumption and inference from bald circumstances without any evidence in support thereof. The appellant Company has prayed that the impugned order passed by the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh dated 9.6.2000 be set aside as it failed to appreciate and consider that there was no deficiency on part of the appellant because the appellant Company duly discharges its warranty obligations. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2/dealer under appeal during the course of arguments contended that the use of car by the complainant is self-explanatory as the delivery of the vehicle was taken on 18th November, 1997 and in just 5 days the car in question had covered 940 kilometres, meaning thereby that the car positively had been used and driven 188 kilometres per day. It is the basic principle that a new car is never used so extensively and the RPM (Engine revolution per minute) should not exceed 800 to 1000. However, it has been seen from Para No 3 of the complaint that the complainant had been running the car recklessly as is evident from the fact that as per the respondent No. 1/complainant Narender Kumar Verma, the car made abnormal sound in first gear at the speed of 40 kilometres per hours It is also the basic principle of driving that no car is taken to such abnormal high RPM in first gear which clearly shows the use of the car is reckless. The defects regarding the engine noise, starting problem and other defects were duly rectified and other parts were replaced to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 1/complainant and signatures for the satisfaction were taken as clear from Annexure R-2/I. In the 2nd free service, the respondent No. 2-Dealer pointed out that the respondent No. 1/complainant never raised any defects, defects, however, the complainant-respondent in fact accompanied the Supervisor of the Dealer Company for the road test on 28.11.1997 and no defect was pointed out at that time, but, in any case, for the reasons best known to the complainant, the word "under protest" had been incorporated upon the Satisfaction Note issued to him (Annexure R-2/2 and Annexure R-2/3 - Satisfaction Note). The learned Counsel for the Dealer Company vehemently contended that the complainant did not bring back the vehicle for subsequent service right upto 29th December, 1997 when the third free service fell due. Thus, it is obvious that no defect was experienced by the complainant during this period. The second service was carried out on covering the vehicle 2405 kilometres and as per the warranty condition, the second service was to be carried out at a mileage between 2000 and 2500 kilometres. All the six defects recorded in the Job Card were rectified to the full satisfaction of the respondent/complainant and the car was ready to be delivered to him on 29.12.1997 But the respondent/complainant did not come on that day took the delivery on 30.12.1997. The copy of the Job Card and Gate Pass are annexed as Annexure R-2/4 and R-2/5. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Dealer Company that the complainant never turned up for 3rd service and in spite of several reminders and letters written to him but a legal notice was served on 8.1.1998. The District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh after verifying the record and affidavits, has brought out that at the time of 1st service which was normally done on the same day, the vehicle was handed over to the dealer consumed four days and the vehicle was returned to the respondent/complainant on 28.11.1997. This speaks the volume of the work involved in the repair of the engine and it gives full support to the case of the respondent/complainant that during this period not only the material parts of the engine were replaced but it was reconditioned also. This only shows that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defects otherwise the new vehicle would not have required that much extensive repairs. The respondent/ complainant was duly justified in signing Annexure R-2/1 as satisfactory after receipt of the vehicle on 1st service and writing under protest this being a printed form and had no other place where the respondent could have mentioned reasons for unsatisfactory service. We are of the considered view that the District Forum has gone into the details of all the facts regarding the service of the vehicle and other documents/affidavits on record.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we uphold the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum regarding the deficiency in service on the part of both the appellants resulting in suffering loss and damages by the respondent/complainant. Resultantly, both the appeals are devoid of merit and are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.