SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN vs R.C.BHARGAVA

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant had purchased a Maruti 800 Standard Car for a consideration of over Rs. 88,000 in June 1988 for his wife who was a handicapped person. It was the case of the complainant before the State Commission that the car developed problems from the very beginning, which were attended from time-to-time but he had not purchased this car for taking it to workshop with great regularity on almost eleven occasions between June 1988 and August 1989. When the car was not still performing up to the satisfaction of the complainant, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint only to the extent of awarding Rs. 25,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,500 as costs. Not satisfied with this relief this appeal has been filed before us, praying for replacement of car. We heard the appellant who is in person as also the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

IT is not in dispute that the complainant is still using the car and has run for over 60,000 kms. since the car is running and in the possession of the appellant/complainant, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission notwithstanding the fact that the complainant had to take the car for 11 times between the period referred to earlier.

TWO specific issues were raised by the appellant that the radiator has not been replaced and the shock absorbers were not working properly. The State Commission during the pendency of the complaint obtained one inspection report of the vehicle carried out on 8

.993 BY one Satish Chandra, Dy. Manager (Service), Maruti Sales, Naraina, Delhi. We have very carefully gone through this report, which states that the ''shockers were found to be OK only minor defects were noticed like tilting of rear left wheel, some problem with the door switch, etc. which cannot be said to be manufacturing defect. Even the report filed BY the appellant/complainant carried out BY one O.P. Singh does not speak of any problem with the shockers and it does not in any way substantiate/corroborate the stand of the appellant that there has been a manufacturing defect. According to this report submitted BY the appellant/complainant it is observed BY the said O.P. Singh "radiator was found to be leaking from bottom tank, which is normal, considering the age of the radiator. The radiator was replaced as requested BY the complainant." At this stage, we do not wish to get into the controversy whether the radiator was repaired or replaced. The fact remains that vehicle is on road, and is running and since the State Commission has already compensated the complainant for the inconvenience caused to the complainant during the warranty period for having taken the vehicle on different occasions, we see $0 ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed BY the State Commission.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in this appeal, hence dismissed. No order as to costs.