MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. NARINDER KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Mr. Narender Kumar r/o House No.52, Sector 10, Panchkula purchased a new Maruti 800 Standard Car from the opposite parties i. e. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) manufacturer and M/s. Pasco. Automobiles, Pasco House, 177-D, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-Dealer on 18.11.1997. The complainant found that the Maruti Car was giving trouble right from the day of its purchase. The opposite parties could not satisfy him with the repairs during the warranty period, hence he filed a Complaint No 67 of 1998 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh on 5.3.1998 and prayed that this complaint be allowed and the respondent may kindly be ordered to replace the defective car in question by a new one of similar nake, i. e.800 Standard Maruti Car free from any defect and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental torture, harassment and financial injury to the complainant. The District Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh allowed the complaint with consolidated costs of Rs.5,500/- including the compensation for harassment undergone by the complainant and directed the opposite parties to replace the car sold to the complainant on 18.11.1997 with a new car of equivalent model.

(2.) Aggrieved against this order, the respondent No.1-M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, the manufacturer has attempted this appeal. The appellant is a manufacturer of Maruti Cars and other utility vehicles, inter alia, Maruti 800, Omni, Gypsy, Zen and Esteem. The appellant provides a warranty to the effect that during the validity of warranty the appellant's only obligation is to repair or replace any part shown to be defective with a new part or the equivalent at no costs to the owner for parts or labour, when appellant acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. It has been averred by the appellant that in order to avail warranty service a customer is required to bring his vehicle to the workshop of any authorised dealer of the appellant who is obliged to test, examine, diagnose any fault demanded by a customer, namely the same and during the currency of warranty provided benefits to the customer under the provisions of warranty. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and the respondent/complainant Shri Narender Kumar Verma and have carefully perused the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- II, U. T. , Chandigarh and the record of the complaint case. We now proceed to examine the rival contentions of the parties.

(3.) Briefly the complainant Mr. Narender Kumar Verma filed a Complaint No.67 of 1998 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh on 5.3.1998 through its Counsel Mr. B. S. Verma, Advocate. He has averred in the complaint that he purchased a new Maruti Car 800 Standard, Chassis No.11674054, Engine No.1579265 from the respondent No.2-M/s. Pasco Automobiles, an authorised dealer of respondent No.1-M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited for Rs.2,02,284.36, delivery of the said car was given to the complainant on 18.11.1997. It bears Registration No. HR-03-B-3861 (Annexure P-1 ). Immediately, after purchase of the car, respondent/ complainant noticed that the first gear was hard and it gave abnormal sound from its engine while it was above 40 km. speed and there was self starting problem. The first service of the car was carried out on 24.11.1997 by respondent No.2. The defects noticed during the period 18.11.1997 to 24.11.1997 were pointed out and those were recorded on the Job Order No.0059087 dated 24.11.1997 (Annexure P-2) as under : " (a) 1st gear hard. (b) Abnormal Wound from Engine about 40 KM speed. (c) Self starting problem. " The respondent No.2-dealer intimated the respondent No.1/complainant on 24.11.1997 that the car will be delivered after service the next day, i. e.25.11.1997 and finally it was delivered after repairs on 28.11.1997 after number of telephone calls and personal visits to the dealer workshop. The complainant was stunned to see that major parts to the engine had been replaced twice and the engine had been reconditioned two times in a span of five days which is evident from the details contained in the Cash Memo No.3385 dated 28.11.1997 raised by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P-3 ). The respondent/complainant took the car to the respondent No.2 for 2nd Free Service, i. e. between 2000 to 2500 km on 29.12.1997 and pointed out the defects in the vehicle as under : " (a) Starting Shifting trouble. (b) Gear Shifting trouble. (c) Low pick up. (d) Defective wiper blades. (e) Rear door rubber loose. (f) Indicator lever not working properly. " The copy of job work dated 29.12.1997 has been attached as Annexure P-4. The dealer of the car after 2nd service delivered the car back to the complainant on 30.12.1997 and since then the car in question had been found defective and was giving strange noise in the engine, when running above 40 km. speed. It has further been averred by the complainant that its pick-up was low, average was low and it had starting trouble, defective indicator lever, abnormal rattling sound coming from front door and side doors in the chassis. He had pointed out that these were clear indications that the car had manufacturing defects and in spite of replacement of major parts of the engine and reconditioning it twice, the manufacturing defects in the car could not be removed and the car required replacement by a new car. The compensation prayed by the complainant/respondent in the District Forum was to replace the car of the complainant by new one and to pay him compensation of Rs.5,000/- for selling defective car and also causing him mental and financial injury.