MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal alongwith Appeal No.991 of 2000, which was instituted on 31.8.2000 arises out of the same order dated 7.7.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum) and both these appeals are being disposed of with this composite order.

(2.) Brief facts taken from the record are that respondent No.1-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had purchased Maruti Car 800 CC from respondent No.2-opposite party No.1 (hereinafter called the opposite party No.1), who was authorised dealer of the manufacturer i. e. appellant-opposite party No.2 (hereinafter called the opposite party No.2 ). The Invoice No.193 dated 19.5.1998 was issued by the opposite party No.1. There was guarantee/warranty for the period of one year. However, from the very beginning of the purchase, there was front side heavy noise from engine of the car. On 28.10.1998 the car was got checked by opposite party No.1. Tension assembly timing belt, belt timing was replaced by opposite party No.1, but even then the defect was not removed. The complainant had made a request to opposite parties for rectifying the defect but of no avail. The car had a manufacturing defect, which according to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Prayer was made in the complaint for replacement of the car and for refund of the amount of consideration with compensation of Rs.10,000/- alongwith costs of the complaint.

(3.) Opposite party No.1 had submitted in the reply that the car was brought to its workshop on 28.10.1998. It was reported by the complainant that there was defect of timing tensioner. Upon checking and testing the tensioner assembly along with belt timing was changed and the car was delivered to the complainant to his satisfaction. Thereafter, no complaint was reported. The car was brought to the workshop again for third free service on 15.1.1999. It was reported that there was some front side noise, steering noise, underbody noise and rattling of door. The service and job was carried out promptly and all the defects were removed. The complainant had never reported any defect in the car at any time thereafter. The warranty period had expired on 25.6.1999. Deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1 was denied.