MARUTI UDYOG LTD. Vs. ATUL BHARADWAJ & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant had purchased Maruti Omni Van No. DL 2CK 1558 (Chassis No. 210103 Engine No. 1518031) from its authorised dealer M/s. Sikand Motors, Janpath, New Delhi. The said car is manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. petitioner/opposite party. The vehicle started giving trouble and was repeatedly taken to the workshop of the opposite party. On an inspection by the staff of the workshop of the respondent, following defects were found:

(2.) THE defects are mentioned in the job card. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the respondent 10 times but the defects continued till the filing of the complaint. Besides the said defects accelerator wire of the vehicle was broken after 800 kms. and tyres were damaged due to brake jittering. The complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum for directions to the opposite party to replace the said vehicle or pay the price of the said vehicle with 24% interest p.a. from the date of purchase till its payment along with Rs. 75,000 as damages suffered by the complainant on account of inconvenience.

(3.) DISTRICT Forum by majority judgment held that the defects pointed out by the complainant are not inherent or manufacturing defects which may warrant the replacement of the car and that the opposite party is not liable to carry out any repair or replace any part after expiry of the warranty period free of charge. This order was challenged by the complainant before the State Commission. The State Commission held that during a short span of 10 months, the vehicle was taken to the workshop 10 times to get the defect of steering wobbling during brake apply, missing of engine and umpteen other defects removed but none of the defects could be removed. The State Commission also came to the conclusion that when the vehicle was taken up for the first service, it was found to be suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. State Commission, therefore, held that the conduct of the respondent in not removing the defect for long leading to the inference that these were inherent defects warranted order for return the value of the vehicle as its replacement or directions to remove the defects would not be feasible or a conciliable position. Therefore, directions were given to the respondent to refund the value of the vehicle to the complainant within one month of receiving back the vehicle in question from the complainant. Besides this, compensation of Rs. 10,000 was awarded for mental agony and harassment and costs of Rs. 1,000. This order is subject matter of challenge in revision.