Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs P. RATHINADURAI

THE complainant''s case is that the Maruti Zen car purchased by him from the opposite party suffers from manufacturing defect and that in spite of services the defect continues to be there and that, therefore, the complainant is entitled to replacement of the car.

THE opposite parties contended that the warranty period was one year and they have rectified the defects. THE manufacturer cannot replace the vehicle or refund its price merely because some defects were identified which can be rectified or replaced. Further, there is no manufacturing defect. THE complainant has been admittedly using the car till date. THE complaint is not maintainable. THEre is no deficiency in service. The Lower Forum by an order dated 30.8.2000 directed the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new Maruti Zen car on surrender of old car without any defect or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs. 3,62,360.32 with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.

The complainant''s case is that he booked for the purchase of a Maruti Zen car and that after availing certain financial assistance, he paid the entire price and took delivery of the car on 30.8.1996. While driving the vehicle from the showroom, he found jolting and dragging on account of the poor performance of suspension and other manufacturing defect. The 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service dealer represented that the defects would be in the first free service whereupon the vehicle was left with him. The defects were not rectified. The output was also low and, therefore, again the vehicle was sent for second free service with a specific complaint that there was wobbling and noise in the suspension. The opposite parties after service returned the vehicle on 28.12.1996. But the defect continued to be there. Thereafter, at the request of one Mr. Suresh, Works Manager, the vehicle was taken to Eekkattuthangal workshop and it was returned to the complainant on 4.1.1997 stating that the defect has been rectified. But the defect had not been rectified. He was asked to leave the vehicle for replacement of both front shock absorbers and he was told that the front shock absorbers have been replaced. Then again on 20.2.1997 when the complainant took the vehicle he was shocked to note that the defects have not been fully rectified and the shock absorbers were not replaced as represented and, therefore, he wrote a letter on 20.2.1997 and another complaint letter on 10.3.1997 to the 1st opposite party. The vehicle was again left with the 2nd opposite party on 21.3.1997 and the Works Manager of the 2nd opposite party represented that they have changed the coil spring. However the left shock absorber was not functioning and, therefore, they agreed to replace the left shock absorber at the time of third free service and the complainant left the vehicle for 3rd free service on 15.4.1997 with specific complaint for replacement of front left side shock absorber and also to rectify the suspension front wheel noise. The vehicle was delivered. But the defect was not rectified. Thereafter again as suggested by the Service Engineer of the 1st opposite party the vehicle was left in the care of M/s. Cars India Pvt. Ltd., Ambattur. It was then represented that both the front shock absorbers have been replaced but the defect was still there and a complaint was sent on 5.7.1997 to which the opposite party replied that on rough roads, the suspension noise of the Zen will be comparatively on the higher side and there is no abnormality or defect. This in short is the complainant case.

THE complainant took delivery of the car on 30.8.1996 and has been utilizing the car ever since. Even after the filing of the complaint which was presented on 26.8.1997 the complainant continues to use the vehicle which is not disputed. It is further borne out from the records namely from documents produced that whenever complaints were made to authorized service dealer of 1st opposite party namely the 2nd opposite party has been attending to it and that the 1st opposite party also according to the complainant took interest to attend to it by sending their service engineers and representatives as we find from the very allegations made in paragraphs 7 and 10 of the complaint. Though the complainant alleges manufacturing defect, a reading of the complaint would show that he has been harping about the quality of shock absorbers and has also been only stating that there was something wrong with the front suspension. Excepting to point out these two defects, the complainant has not stated anywhere in the complaint that there was any other defect in the vehicle. THErefore, in such circumstances, we have to see whether the defects pointed out by the complainant would amount to manufacturing defect. Unless it is a manufacturing defect, it cannot be rectified but if it is any other defect it can be rectified and the defective part can be replaced. The complaint centres around only shock absorbers and suspension. These are all parts which can be replaced. The complainant herein had utilized all the three free services. He has been only stating that both the shock absorbers were not replaced. Later, he concede that the shock absorbers were replaced. He also stated that there is something wrong with the suspension and that the defect in suspension has not been rectified. It is necessary to have the opinion of an automobile engineer to check and verify the statement of the complainant. He ought to have asked for the appointment of a Commissioner to check and inspect the vehicle to find out whether there is a defect with the suspension as alleged by him and whether it is a defect coming under the category of manufacturing defect and whether such defect can be rectified or not. In the absence of expert evidence, one cannot simply accept the complainant''s case. More so when we find that whenever a complaint was made it has been rectified by the opposite party and they have attended to it. In spite of it, he says that the problem still continues to persist and when he approaches the Consumer Redressal Forum claiming the replacement of a car, it is not the bounden duty of the complainant to adduce expert evidence on that. So that the Forum can come to a conclusion as to the nature of the defect and whether such defect is a manufacturing defect and that it cannot be rectified. Therefore, by merely alleging that there is manufacturing defect, the complainant cannot hope to seal the issue. It is true that certain defects did occur and those defects were according to the opposite parties were attended to at the time when the vehicle was left with them for the free services. For it is the practice that the vehicle has to be taken for free services so that the defects which occur in the running can be rectified. As pointed out by the National Commission in the decision reported in 1994 (3) CPR 395, it will be hard on the manufacturer to replace the vehicle or refund its price merely because some defects (not manufacturing defects) appear, and it can be rectified or defective parts can be replaced. In fact, in the course of the order, the National Commission mentioned the defects in that case which run as follows : "Sticking up of the rear left window, non-working of power windows, very high engine noise, abnormal vibration, leakage of water through a gap in the rear door resulting in the upholstery getting wet in the rear, water leakage from A/c hose and dripping on the feet of the driver, Head lights burning even after being switched off, rattling noise from exhaust pipes, faulty electrical system resulting in fuses to blow frequently, non-working of the Central locking system, non-locking of left real hand door, difficulty in opening it, wires hanging out disturbing passengers leg movement, careless finish, noise from the cones, creaking noise from the front and rear suspension, door rattling, non-securing of the front seat, faulty stereo system, radio and speaker non-working, rear wiper falling." After referring to the same, the National Commission has stated that the complaints are trivial in nature. And that the complainant is using the vehicle regularly. The National Commission has further observed that "we have carefully gone through the records of the case and the order of the State Commission. It is surprising to know that no manufacturing defect has been pointed out in the vehicle. Some defects did occur and as noticed earlier the contention of the Dealer is that as and when the vehicle was brought for free service or maintenance service the defects were rectified."

THE above said decision holds good with regard to the facts of this case. THErefore, in the above circumstances, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service and, therefore, the order of the District Forum directing the opposite parties to replace the car or repay the cost of the car is not sustainable. In the result, this appeal is allowed but without cost. The order passed by the Lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed without cost. Appeal allowed.