Maruti Udyog Limited vs Hasmukh Lakshmichand on 26 May, 2009
12. From our above findings and observations, we are of
the view that whenever a person purchases a new good
and if the same is found to be so defective that it needs to
be replaced by another new good of similar description,
then the same be replaced by such a good, which is free
from any defect, on the request of the complainant. But
such replacement is not a pragmatic solution. So, in our
view, the disputes between the consumer, the service
providers and the traders should be ended once for all by
calling upon the traders and the manufacturers to refund
the cost of the vehicle or the goods with adequate
compensation as the possibility of the new goods also
being defective and not being upto the satisfaction of the
consumers, cannot be ruled out and in that case parties
will be relegated to square one and will suffer another
bout of litigation. Merely because the appellant had run
vehicle for 40,260 kms, reluctantly and grudgingly after
taking it on number of occasions to the garage does not
mean that the manufacturer of defective goods can escape
from its liability. So, we hold both the OPS guilty of
deficiency of service and direct them to refund the entire
cost of the vehicle and on account of interest, to pay a
lumpsum of Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant.