MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD Vs. ADULAPURAM BUCHIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, we have to state that the In-charge President, District Forum-II, Nampally, Hyderabad-II abused the power under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act in issuing Non Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. The President of the State Commission shall hold necessary enquiry as to why such Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner, Maruti Udyog Ltd.

(2.) IN view of the above observation, operation of the Non Bailable warrant is stayed.

(3.) HOWEVER, on merits, we do not think that this would be a fit case for interference with the finding of fact recorded by the State Commission. The State Commission has specifically arrived at the conclusion that various defects, as recorded in its order, were found in the Esteem car purchased by the complainant. Not only that, the said defects were noticed within the warranty period. The dealer has specifically stated and issued an estimated bill that engine and gear box were required to be replaced.