MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. PROF SURENDRA PRAKASH SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum (Central), Delhi dated 14.5.2001, passed in Complaint Case No.1958/1999-entitled Prof. Surendra Prakash Seth V/s. Managing Director/director Engineering, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Anr.

(2.) The case of the respondent No.1 before the District Forum, in brief, was that the said respondent Shri Surendra Prakash Seth had purchased a new Maruti Car-800 bearing Registration No. DL 6c 2897 from respondent No.2 M/s. Bagga Link Motors (P) Ltd. , Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 8.11.1997 for a sum of Rs.2,20,323/-. The gear box of the said car became defective before the second service at 2130 kms. and as such the case assembly of the same was changed by the respondent No.2 Bagga Link Motors (P) Ltd. Thereafter before the third free service on 3.9.1999 when the car had only covered 4587 kms. the gear box of the car broke down while driving and the car stopped with a major impact. Accordingly, the vehicle was sent for repairs and the case assembly was changed again without changing the gear box despite assurances in that regard by the appellant. The respondent No.1 thereafter kept on corresponding with the appellant for the change of some parts but there was no positive response from the appellant. However, in the process of repairs, the new car had started looking old even though it had been driven only for 5000 kms. during the said span. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 approached the District Forum by filing a complaint praying therein for the replacement of the car or in the alternative directions to the appellant to change all the necessary parts including the gear box with the request for the extension of the warranty for a further period of one year along with two future free services. The respondent No.1 had also prayed for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(3.) The appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum along with respondent No.2 M/s. Bagga Link Motors (P) Ltd. resisted the complaint of respondent No.1 and stated on merits that the respondent No.2 had sold the vehicle to the respondent No.1 after carrying out pre-delivery inspection of the vehicle and that the respondent No.1 was fully satisfied with the vehicle at the time of delivery. However, on 21.9.1998, the respondent No.1 had taken the vehicle to the workshop of respondent No.2 for second free service and at that time had made no complaint regarding the working of the gear box. However, on examination it was found by the respondent No.2 that small drops of oil were coming out from the transmission case and as such the transmission case was replaced with a new one, under warranty and the respondent No.1 had taken the delivery of the vehicle after being fully satisfied with the services rendered by respondent No.2. The warranty of the said vehicle expired on 8.11.1998 and thereafter the respondent No.1 entered into a service contract with the respondent No.2 to which the appellant was not privy. Furthermore it was alleged by the appellant that the respondent No.2 had duly informed the appellant that the gear box of the vehicle in question had not broken, in fact, on observation, it was found that the input shaft had broken and due to this, the first and second gears had become hard. However, as a goodwill gesture, the respondent No.2 had changed the bearing, input shaft, transmission case as well as engine oil, oil filter, fuel filter free of cost and the appellant had expressed his satisfaction while executing the satisfaction note dated 11.9.1999 at the time of the delivery of the vehicle. As such in the said circumstances, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the complaint filed by respondent No.1 was liable to be dismissed with costs.