VIRINDER SHARMA vs Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Limited

COMPLAINANT, Virinder Sharma instituted a complaint against M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, the manufacturer and M/s. Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited, Chandigarh, local dealer for replacement of his motor car-Esteem VX make 1998 as there were large number of defects which had not been rectified by the manufacturer/local dealer. Shri Virinder Sharma, complainant, purchased it in the name of M/s. Precto Engineers, Chandigarh which is a partnership concern having the complainant and his mother as partners. The price paid was Rs. 4.90 lakhs after deduction of discount of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant spent Rs. 62,000/- for insurance and also spent Rs. 4,500/- on accessories. The delivery of the car was taken through M/s. Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited, respondent No. 3. After using the car for about 10-15 days the complainant found a large number of defects in the car and he wrote a letter dated 16.4.1998 to respondent No. 1 with a copy to respondent No. 2 Regional Office, Maruti Udyog Limited, Sector 8C, Chandigarh mentioning the following major defects in the car : (i) Upholstery of the roof is coming down (sagging); (ii) All the doors are rattling; (iii) Noise in the rear wheels; (iv) Air conditioner totally defective; and (v) Tyres MRF Zigma CC noisy.

There were other minor defects also noticed like rubber of window glass, steering assembly, switches were not proper, fuel pump giving trouble during heat, starter motor getting stuck, rear view mirror defective, etc. In response to the aforesaid letter, respondent No. 2 advised the complainant to contact the local dealer, respondent No. 3 for rectification of the defects. Respondent No. 3 carried out the defects vide Annexure C-V and are reproduced as under : 1. Combination switch replaced for retelling noise.

LHS side rear view mirror replaced due to noise. Roof lining replaced (sagging problem).

Engine tuning done, fuel filter found clogged (replaced).

FT. LHS door glass adjusted and weather/strip replaced. Partition trim adjusted, clamp fixed properly.

AC performance checked and found satisfactory. Grill Temp, found 5.7 to 6C and Cabin Temp. 19.1C. Noise from tyres is normal due to characteristic noise of tyres tread - MRF Zigma CC. Vehicle road tested with customer after repair performance of vehicle w.r.f. noise found satisfactory. However, we will keep it under observation.

STARTER Motor checked and found OK as of now. 2. The complainant was not satisfied hence he put his remarks on the job card as under : "There is steering noise noticed and test drive taken by Head Mechanic and observed that all doors are making noise very badly. First they agreed to sign the defects but now the MD of Company refused to sign the defects he himself observed while taking the test drive. The car was scratched on driver''s side while servicing."

The complainant put forward his claim which is reproduced as under : (a) Replacement of car. (b) An amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs may be awarded to the complainant for harassment, mental torture and unsafety of life. (c) Damages to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac with interest, may kindly be awarded because of loss of business. (d) The complainant may also be awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 with interest. (e) It is also prayed that cost of litigation may be awarded to the complainant.

In a reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 a few preliminary objections have been raised that the complainant is not a ''consumer'' as the car in question was purchased by M/s. Precto Engineers for commercial purpose and that the present complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant. The respondents have also averred that as per the terms and conditions of warranty all the necessary repairs were made and the defective parts of the car were also replaced. The warranty period was for 12 months or the car run of 20,000 kms. whichever event occurs first. There was no deficiency on the part of the respondents and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 3 also filed and it has been averred that whenever the motor car came to their workshop for service or repair, they did their best and made the vehicle defect-free. There was no manufacturing defect in the car. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record and evidence produced by the parties. The short-comings/ defects in the front door mirror, rear view mirror, air-conditioner, etc. were of such a nature which have been rectified. The main grievance of the complainant had been that the ceiling upholstery was coming down i.e. sagging and the tyres were giving a peculiar noise. The respondents attended to the complaint of the consumer and he was asked to remain in touch from time-to-time with the Works Manager of M/s. Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited, but this respondent could not satisfy the complainant so far as the upholstery of ceiling of the motor car was concerned. During the course of arguments nothing has been brought to our notice that there was any defect in the engine, suspension, electrical and cooling systems except air-conditioner. This goes to show that the complainant was not entitled to replacement of the motor car or refund of the price. However, ceiling in this case was sub-standard and had been causing irritation to the complainant. It was not at all expected in a luxury car. Considering all the aspects discussed above, we are of the view that the respondents had been deficient in rectifying the major defect of the ceiling. The conclusion is that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Besides this the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 4,000/- as damages on account of mental harassment together with costs Rs. 2,000/-. This amount shall be payable to the complainant within two months of this judgment. Complaint allowed with costs. ____________