MARUTI UDYOG LTD. vs Atul Bharadwaj And Anr.

THE complainant had purchased Maruti Omni Van No. DL 2CK 1558 (Chassis No. 210103 Engine No. 1518031) from its authorised dealer M/s. Sikand Motors, Janpath, New Delhi. The said car is manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. petitioner/opposite party. The vehicle started giving trouble and was repeatedly taken to the workshop of the opposite party. On an inspection by the staff of the workshop of the respondent, following defects were found: (i) Steering wobbling while brake apply

(ii) Leaf springs noisy

(iii) All doors noisy

(iv) Pick up low

(v) Engine missing problem

(vi) Both sliding doors opening/closing hard

(vii) Brake juddering/jettring -which has been source of mental agony as and when the vehicle was put on the road.

THE defects are mentioned in the job card. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the respondent 10 times but the defects continued till the filing of the complaint. Besides the said defects accelerator wire of the vehicle was broken after 800 kms. and tyres were damaged due to brake jittering. The complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum for directions to the opposite party to replace the said vehicle or pay the price of the said vehicle with 24% interest p.a. from the date of purchase till its payment along with Rs. 75,000 as damages suffered by the complainant on account of inconvenience.

DISTRICT Forum by majority judgment held that the defects pointed out by the complainant are not inherent or manufacturing defects which may warrant the replacement of the car and that the opposite party is not liable to carry out any repair or replace any part after expiry of the warranty period free of charge. This order was challenged by the complainant before the State Commission. The State Commission held that during a short span of 10 months, the vehicle was taken to the workshop 10 times to get the defect of steering wobbling during brake apply, missing of engine and umpteen other defects removed but none of the defects could be removed. The State Commission also came to the conclusion that when the vehicle was taken up for the first service, it was found to be suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. State Commission, therefore, held that the conduct of the respondent in not removing the defect for long leading to the inference that these were inherent defects warranted order for return the value of the vehicle as its replacement or directions to remove the defects would not be feasible or a conciliable position. Therefore, directions were given to the respondent to refund the value of the vehicle to the complainant within one month of receiving back the vehicle in question from the complainant. Besides this, compensation of Rs. 10,000 was awarded for mental agony and harassment and costs of Rs. 1,000. This order is subject matter of challenge in revision. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the vehicle in question was purchased on 9.7.1997 and the warranty period of one year expired on 8.7.1998. He took us through the job cards and urged that whatever deficiencies were pointed out by the complainant were rectified and ultimately last job card dated 23.9.1998 shows that only minor complaint of engine turning and the rear door sliding, opening hard had been reported on that date, which was also rectified. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the questions to be decided in revision are, (i) whether there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle; (ii) whether the same were attended to by the opposite party ; and (iii) liability of the company after the warranty is over.

IT is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no basis of the findings of the State Commission that the vehicle suffered from inherent defect and that the vehicle had already run about 40,000 kms. which would not be possible if the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr., II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC)=(2006) 4 SCC 644 and has submitted that the liability of the petitioner is to repair and replace the defective parts as per warranty. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the direction to replace the car or payment of its value could be ordered only if it was established that the car suffered from manufacturing defects on account of which , it was not roadworthy. He, therefore, concluded by stating that the order of the State Commission is not only perverse but the same is not based on material on record.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submitted that District Forum had passed the order without reference to the job cards, which were filed before the District Forum. In fact, it was disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the job cards had been filed before the District Forum though it was admitted that job cards had been filed before the State Commission. According to the learned Counsel for the complainant, the defects were repeatedly brought to the notice of the opposite party but the said defects could not be rectified on account which the complainant is entitled for replacement of car or value thereof. In support of this submission he placed a judgment of this Commission, Hyundai Motors India Ltd. v. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd., I (2008) CPJ 19 (NC).

WE have considered the contentions advanced on behalf of both sides as also the job cards relating to the complaints of the complainant. The vehicle in question was purchased on 9.7.1997 and it was taken for first service on 5.8.1997. The complaints which were reported at that time were -Steering Wobbling While Brake apply. Leaf Spring Noisy. All doors noisy and pick up low. The vehicle was taken for second service on 5.10.1997 and the complaints reported by the complainant were - Steering wobbling while brake applying, Clutch play adjustment and engine missing. As per job card dated 21.10.1997, the complaints were Steering Wobbling while brake apply, engine missing and gear lever noisy. The vehicle was again taken on 4.11.1997 for Steering Wobbling and Brake Jettering ring. On 2.12.1997, Brake jettering was reported and the complainant was asked to come on 9.12.1997. On 9.12.1997, Brake jettering was rectified. On 10.1.1998, the complaints reported were Headlamp Focus adjustment, Eng. Oil/oil filter change, Fuel Filter change, General check -up, Tyre rotation, FR two wheel balance, Fuel consumption high, Brake not effective/brace peadal/oil. On 17.2.1998 and 15.9.1998, Brake jettering was again reported. The vehicle was checked by Engineer and the same was rectified. Thereafter, the vehicle was taken on 23.9.1998 and the only complaint was engine tuning and rear door sliding open hard. On this date, the vehicle had already run 12,456 kms.

THUS , from the job cards, it is clear that initially the complaint was relating to Steering wobbling with application of brake, pick up was low and all doors were noisy. This complaint was reported on 5.8.1997, 5.10.1997, 21.10.1997 and 4.11.1997. Thereafter, this complaint was not reported which means that the said complaints had been satisfactorily rectified by the opposite party. From 4.10.1997, the complaint reported was brake jettering, which was rectified on 9.12.1997. Thereafter, on 10.1.1998, there were other minor complaints. Brake jettering was again reported on 7.2.1998 and 15.5.1998, which was also rectified. On 23.9.1998, the only complaint reported was engine tuning and rear door sliding open hard. This shows that after 15.5.1998, till 23.9.1998, there was no complaint. Learned Counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant had sent letter dated 23.9.1998 regarding the problems faced by him but the said letter has not been placed on record,

THE complaints reported by the complainant had been attended to by the opposite party and the same were rectified. There is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the complaints were on account of manufacturing defects. There is no doubt that if there are manufacturing defects, there is liability to rectify the manufacturing defects or to replace the defective parts. The State Commission has come to the conclusion that since the vehicle had to be taken 10 times during 10 months and the defects could not be removed inference can be drawn that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. The State Commission has also held that when the vehicle was taken for the first time, it was found to be suffering from inherent manufacturing defect (s). There is no material on record to support the said finding of the State Commission. The State Commission had accepted that the vehicle had already run 40,000 kms., which would also go to show that the vehicle did not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defect. It is no doubt true that the vehicle was taken to the service station on many occasions and the complaints were duly attended to and rectified. None of the complaints can be said to be on account of any inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore, the direction of the State Commission to return the value of the vehicle on the ground that replacement or direction to remove the defects would not be feasible or a conciliable position is without any basis or justification. In our opinion for the inconvenience sufferred by the complainant for taking the vehicle many times to the service centre for rectification of complaints and resulting inconvenience can be compensated by awarding compensation of Rs. 30,000.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be met by directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the complainant. The costs to be paid to the complainant are quantified at Rs. 2,500. R.P. allowed.