MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. OM SAHAI BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of R.P. Nos. 2601/05 filed by opposite party No. 2 and 2679/05 filed by opposite party No. 1 which arise out of a common order dated 1.8.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dismissing appeals against the order dated 26.5.2003 of a District Forum. The District Forum had allowed the complaint ex parte with direction to the petitioners to replace the Maruti car sold to respondent No. 1/complainant with a new one.

(2.) Mr. K.P.S. Rao appeared for the petitioner in R.P. No. 2601/05 while Mr. Pramod Dayal for the petitioner in R.P. No. 2679/05. Submissions advanced by both of them were by and large similar. Main thrust of argument advanced was that the District Forum, Bijnor did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as neither of the two petitioners was/is having a branch office at Bijnor; petitioners were not served with notices for 13.7.2001; car sold to respondent No. 1 by M/s. Tanya Automobiles Ltd., dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd. did not have any manufacturing defect and even if the report of Prem Bandhu Saxena, Surveyor and Loss Assessor dated 10.7.1998 is accepted still case for replacement is not made out. In support of last limb of argument, strong reliance was placed on the decision in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr., II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC)=(2006) 4 SCC 644. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in both the revisions while supporting the order passed by Fora below placed reliance on the decision in Jose Philip Mampillil v. Premier Automobiles Ltd.& Anr., I (2004) CPJ 9 (SC)=I (2004) SLT 855=(2004) 2 SCC 278.

(3.) It will be profitable to take up the said last limb of argument for discussion first. It is not in dispute that the car in question was purchased by respondent No. 1 on 8.6.1997. In support of the plea of car having manufacturing defect, the respondent No. 1 filed the report of Prem Bandhu Saxena dated 10.7.1998. Reasons recorded in this report which are material are produced below :