MAMAN CHAND Vs. MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 10.01.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 736/2005, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Maman Chand & Ors. and in First Appeal No. 913/2005, M/s. Apra Auto (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Maman Chand & Ors., vide which, while disposing of the said appeals, the order dated 01.03.2005, passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint no. 418/2003, allowing the said complaint, was ordered to be modified.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant, Maman Chand purchased a Maruti Van Car (Omni), registration no. HR36E3513 from the opposite party no. 2 and 3, dealer, Apra Auto India Pvt. Ltd., manufactured by the opposite party no. 1, Maruti Udyog Ltd. on 28.05.2003. The complainant alleged in his consumer complaint that the said vehicle was suffering from a number of defects from the very beginning. There was noise in the engine, bubbling in the wheels, slippage of gear, low pick up, less mileage and leakage of oil from the engine of the vehicle. The complainant brought these defects to the knowledge of respondent no. 2, who assured him that there were minor defects in the vehicle, which would be removed after one or two services. The complainant had the first service of the car done on 06.06.2003 and the second service on 18.07.2003, when he was assured by the opposite party no. 2 that the vehicle shall run properly in future, otherwise they shall get the vehicle changed. The complainant alleged that when he was going with his family in the vehicle on 20.07.2003, it broke down at 7.00 pm on the same day. The complainant was put to a lot of harassment, as he had to spend the whole night near the vehicle and on the next day, he brought the vehicle to the opposite party no. 2, after paying the towing charges. It is the say of the complainant that despite contacting the opposite party no. 2 several times, they did not take adequate steps to repair the said vehicle. He, therefore, filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the opposite parties to change the vehicle or to refund the actual price of the vehicle alongwith 18% interest, besides compensation against mental harassment amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 5,500/- as cost of litigation.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the opposite party no. 1, Manufacturer, by filing the written version before the District Forum in which, they stated that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. Further, the complainant had concealed the material facts that he drove the vehicle in deep water-logging, which resulted in hydrostatic locking due to ingress of water in the engine compartment. The Service Engineer found the cylinder block cracked due to ingress of water. There was presence of water in the air filter and moisture in the spark plug. The complainant was, therefore, told that the engine had broken down due to his own negligence and carelessness and hence, the job could not be done under the warranty. The District Forum, after taking into account the contentions raised by the parties and considering the documents on record, allowed the consumer complaint, saying that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defects and it required replacement. It directed the respondent to replace the vehicle in question, failing which, the complainant will be entitled to recover the actual price of the vehicle, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint. A compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for mental harassment/agony and Rs. 400/- as litigation charges were also awarded to the complainant. The District Forum relied upon the report of Sh. Satpal, machinery expert, whom they had appointed as Local Commissioner to examine the vehicle.