THOMAS GEORGE vs MARUTI UDYOG LTD

COMPLAINANT Dr. George Thomas purchased a Maruti car on 18.11.2000 and felt that he was given a used car, instead of a new one by the dealer. The dealer, O.P no.3, when approached by the complainant accepted the vehicle for repairs. But, he wrote to the manufacturer, O.P no.1 to replace the vehicle. Not satisfied with the response, complainant moved the District Forum with the request that either the defective car be replaced with a new one or the price of Rs.3,76,440/- refunded to him. He also sought compensation for deficiency in service as well as cost.

THE District Consumer Forum Mangalore, in its order of 13.5.2005, allowed the complaint holding the opposite parties no.1 & 2 jointly and severally responsible for the refund of sale price and pay compensation of Rs.55,000/-. In appeal no. 870/2005 against this order, the State Commission directed the opposite parties to repair the vehicle completely at their cost within four weeks of taking delivery and also extend the warranty by six months. No compensation or cost were ordered to be paid to the complainant. The above order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka has been challenged in the revision petition before us substantially on the following grounds: 1. While passing the impugned order the State Commission had noted that ''The learned counsel for the complainant has no objection to dispose of the Appeal on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties no.1 & 2.'' The revision petitioner has subsequently taken the stand that there was no consent on the part of the complainant as there was no compelling reason for him to consent to this order, having already received a more beneficial order from the District Consumer Forum. 2. The defects pointed out by him in the vehicle are irreparable and, therefore, the order of the State commission is not justified. Counsels for the two parties were heard on 10.8.2010. It was pointed out on behalf of the RPs/Complainant he had filed a review application before the Karnataka State Consumer Commission which was dismissed by the Commission stating that: ''Since the main complaint is disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the parties, we find no reason to entertain this Misc. petition.''

The counsel for the O.Ps also informed that defects in the vehicle have been rectified as per the directions given by the State Commission and the vehicle returned to the complainant. Counsel for O.P. no.2 further informed that as the vehicle had met with an accident at 8970 Kms, the warranty had become void. Yet, repairs as per requests have been carried out. The District Forum was also informed in detail about the same.

In relation to the first ground, we find from the records of this case that a petition was moved on 23.9.2006 by the counsel for the complainant stating that ''I had however, sought for dismissal of the appeal filed by the opposite parties and had also argued at length.'' He therefore, requested the State Commission to modify/delete the order ''to the extent of deleting Para 3 of the said order in the interest of equity and justice.'' This miscellaneous petition was dismissed by the State Commission as noted above. Now, at this stage, this plea cannot travel any further. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission on this account.

THE other substantive ground for the revision is that the defects in the vehicle are irreparable and, therefore, the order of the State Commission to repair them is incorrect. As the order passed by the State Commission was a consensual order, it is not longer necessary for us to go into this plea. We may however, note that this was the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum on 13.5.2005 in relation to a vehicle purchased on 18.11.2000 i.e. after use of five and a half years. The District Forum had not based its conclusion on any expert report to show the reasons why it was to be considered irreparable. The order also shows that between 27.11.2000 and 4.1.2002, the car was taken to the garage on 12 occasions and the complaints were attended to. Counsel for OP-2 informed us that as on 2.7.2004, when the vehicle was received for fresh repairs, it had already run for 32735 Kms.

A similar matter came before Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabagotra (2006) 4 SCC 644. In this case, soon after purchase, the Maruti car was found to have a defective clutch. The purchaser had sought refund of the purchase price. The Supreme Court referred to clause 3 of the manual which reads as under : ''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 of 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 replacement which are not covered by this warranty.'' The Supreme Court observed that what is relevant in this case is that the warranty conditions were specially stated. This is not a case of silence of a contract of sale as to warranty. Therefore, the principal of Corpus Juris Secundum will not be applicable here. It was decided that the defective clutch assembly shall be replaced at the cost of the company and in addition, the complainant would be entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- towards cost. By the same principle, it is necessary to uphold the direction of the State Commission in this revision petition to repair the vehicle at the cost of the respondents, and to extend the warranty for a period of six months, after repair. We would, however, like to note the fact that in this case the purchaser was supplied the vehicle of a colour different from the one he had ordered. More importantly, the personal inconvenience to him resulting from the multiple occasions of repair to the vehicle cannot be overlooked. It is, therefore, just and proper to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony and costs incurred by him, in this entire process.

ACCORDINGLY, the order of the State Commission is upheld with a modification that a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the Revision Petitioner by the respondents.

THE revision petition is disposed off in above terms.