National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Om Sahai Bhatnagar And Anr. on 2 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: III(2007)CPJ459(NC), (2007) 2 CPR 443, AIR 2007 (NOC) 2157 (NCC) (N.C.D.R.C., NEW DELHI), 2007 (5) ALJ (NOC) 872 (NCC) (N. C. D. R. C., NEW DELHI), (2007) 3 CPJ 459, (2007) 4 ALL WC 4(17)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Member)
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 and Anr. . 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. and Anr. .
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:
On going through the above-mentioned five points it can be attributed that the engine oil consumption is abnormal high side as per norm of Maruti Udyog Ltd. regarding to the vehicles Maruti 800.
In my opinion the engine oil consumption is due to down engine compression. At such early engine life the down engine compression is certainly sign of manufacturing defect in the engine.
Now finally after checking the vehicle regarding the four points here I certify as under:
1. The engine is running at high engine oil consumption.
2. Dicky is sounding in the running time of the vehicle.
3. Suspension is creating abnormal sound.
4. Right front door glass is knocking in running condition
4. After the District Forum passed the order disposing of complaint on 26.5.2003, the respondent No. 1 left the car at the place of M/s. Tanya Automobiles Ltd., dealer on 22.06.2003 and the same was stated to be still with them. It was pointed out by Mr. Rao, Adv. that though by way of ground 'J' in R.P. No. 2601/05 it is stated that car was more than 8 years old and had been used continuously by respondent No. 1 and it had run more than 75,000 kms. still the respondent No. 1 did not specifically controvert in the response filed to the revision petition of the car not having run more than 75,000 kms as stated. In corresponding paras of grounds 'J & K' in the response filed by respondent No. 1, it is stated that at the time the car was left with M / Section Tanya Automobiles Ltd. it was only 6 years old but it is not disclosed therein how much it had run by the time it was left with the dealer. Respondent No. 1 will, thus, be deemed to have not disputed that the car had run more than 75,000 kms. Obviously, between 8.6.1997 to 22.6.2003 the car was used extensively by respondent No. l. Considering the ratio in Susheel Kumar Gabgotra's case (supra) as also what is noticed in the said report dated 10.7.1998 on the aspect of manufacturing defect and the above facts, I am of the view that order for replacement of car with a new one by the Fora below was not at all called for and the direction which could have been passed, should have been only for change of the engine, rectifying the sound in the dicky, knocking of the glass of right front door and sound in suspension with suitable compensation which is quantified at Rs. 40,000. Having reached this conclusion, other submissions referred to above, need not be gone into. Decisions cited on behalf of respondent No. 1 has no applicability to the present case.
5. For the foregoing discussion order for replacement of the car passed by Fora below being not legally sustainable is set aside and the petitioners are directed to change the engine, rectify the sound in dicky and suspension and repair the knocking of the glass of right front door within six weeks of the receipt of the copy of this order. In addition, respondent No. 1 will be entitled to receive a consolidated amount of Rs. 40,000 from the petitioners for the inconvenience caused on account of said defects. Respondent No. 1 will take the delivery of the car after the needful is done after said six weeks from the petitioners and in case the car is not collected within 10 days the respondent No. 1 will be liable to pay garage charges paid by the petitioners. No order as to costs.
Both the revision petitions are disposed of.