MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD Vs. HIRAK I DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Dr. Hirak I Desai purchased a Maruti Baleno car from the Chairman of Maruti Udyog Ltd. OP1, Mr. Hirak I. Desai-OP-2 and M/s Kataria Automobiles Ltd.-OP-3, who is the dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited for a sum of Rs.5,88,086/- which also included lifetime tax in the RTO in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. During the warrantee period, when the car had travelled for 13,000 kms., all of a sudden its engine broke down dead on 26.04.2007. The said vehicle was taken to Opponent No. 3. The complainant was informed that the engine had broken down as the crank bolt of the car was destroyed as it failed to hold the pressure and the engine of the car would be replaced within 12 to 15 days.

(2.) On 27th April 2007, he was informed by the OP-3 that the half engine of the car would be changed and the OP-1 is looking for a half engine and the complainant would be informed by 23rd March 2007. No information was sent and therefore, the complainant met the OP-3. OP-3 informed him that it would not change the half engine but would change the crank bolt No.17. On enquiries, it transpired that the half engine was not available in the market and therefore, it could not be replaced. The complainant had written letters on 12.03.2007 and 27.06.2007 to the opponents but it evoked response only from OP-3. Since the car could not be repaired, therefore, the present complaint was filed.

(3.) The OPs admitted that the half engine was not available with the OP-1. However, the Company managed to get the half engine and arranged to send it to OP-3 and under special circumstances, the half engine was fitted on 27.07.2007. The Opponent took trial for three days. On 03.08.2007, the complainant was asked to take delivery of the car. The complainant went there and being not satisfied, refused to take the delivery of the car. The car is still lying in the garage of OP-3. It was contended that there was no manufacturing defect. OPs-1 & 2 stated that they are ready to replace any spare parts without costs in the warrantee period. They do not take extra charge for the said replacement It, however, contended that they did not admit of replacing the engine. It is contended that the complainant had also taken the trial of the car and he was fully satisfied. However, he refused to take delivery of the car.