Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr on 29 March, 2006
However, the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Maruti Udyog Ltd. versus
Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr." (supra) is the latest judgment
and it is to be followed. Moreover, the vehicle of the complainant
was taken by the complainant to Op No. 3 Authorised Service
Station of Op No. 1 and on all three occasions, it was attended to
and where the defective parts were required to be replaced, those
were replaced. Now the vehicle is in a stop condition and he had
got it checked from Sukhbir Singh, Mechanic, who has stated that
crank shaft cannot be replaced without opening of the engine and
in case the engine was opened then it should be replaced. No
doubt that in case crank shaft was replaced, it might involve the
opening of the engine but after fixing of the crank shaft and other
First Appeal No. 794 of 2016 11
parts, which were required at that time, the complainant has not
reported for any problem with regard to those parts again. Merely
because engine was opened for replacing the crank shaft, it does
not mean that repair was not proper or that it will warrant
replacement of the vehicle. With regard to the report of Sukhbir
Singh, it has been stated that he has been working as a mechanic
for the last 25 years but no qualification has been referred in the
certificate. No affidavit of this mechanic has also been filed to give
a chance to the Op to cross check what is his qualification.
Therefore, such a report cannot be accepted. No other technical
expert report has been placed on the record to say that the vehicle
in question has inherent manufacturing defect. During the trial
before the District Forum, no application under Section 13(1)(c)
was given by the complainant to refer the vehicle to an expert
opinion to check whether the vehicle has inherent manufacturing
defect or whether the defect, if any, is repairable. Therefore, in
these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no
evidence with regard to inherent manufacturing defect in the
vehicle and unless there is inherent manufacturing defect, the
vehicle cannot be replaced according to the warranty terms, it can
be repaired or defective parts can be replaced and counsel for the
appellant/Op No. 1 stated that they are still ready to check the
vehicle and make it road worthy. In these circumstances, the order
passed by the District Forum regarding replacement of the vehicle
and in the alternative to refund the invoice amount of the vehicle,
is not justified. At the most, the Op can be asked to repair the
First Appeal No. 794 of 2016 12
vehicle, if any, spare part is required to be replaced, it could be
replaced and make it road worthy to the satisfaction of the
complainant. Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant has
not been able to justify how he is entitled for replacement of the
vehicle, if there is any defect in the vehicle, it does not warrant for
replacement. In case it is within the warranty period, it can be
rectified or defective parts could be replaced, therefore, the order
passed by the District Forum requires modification.