Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President; Col. P.K. Vasudeva
& Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
VIRINDER SHARMA—Complainant
versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED & ORS.—Respondents
Complaint Case No. 26 of 1998—Decided on 16.4.1999

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. V.K. Vashisht, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2:Mr. P.K. Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3:Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate.

A manufacturer and a dealer are deficient in service if they fail to rectify a major defect in a product.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 - SECTION 2(1)(d), SECTION 12(1)(b) - DEFECTIVE CAR - REPLACEMENT - COMPENSATION - The complainant purchased a car from the manufacturer and the local dealer. The car had several defects, including a sagging roof upholstery and noisy tires. The manufacturer and the dealer attempted to repair the defects, but the complainant was not satisfied. The complainant filed a complaint with the Consumer Forum, seeking replacement of the car, compensation for harassment and mental torture, damages for loss of business, and litigation costs.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant purchased a car from the manufacturer and the local dealer. The car had several defects, including a sagging roof upholstery and noisy tires. The manufacturer and the dealer attempted to repair the defects, but the complainant was not satisfied. The complainant filed a complaint with the Consumer Forum, seeking replacement of the car, compensation for harassment and mental torture, damages for loss of business, and litigation costs.
Finding of the Court:

The Consumer Forum found that the manufacturer and the dealer were deficient in rectifying the major defect of the ceiling. The Forum awarded the complainant compensation of Rs. 45,000, damages of Rs. 4,000 for mental harassment, and costs of Rs. 2,000.
Issues: Whether the manufacturer and the dealer were deficient in rectifying the major defect of the ceiling.
Ratio Decidendi: The Consumer Forum held that the manufacturer and the dealer were deficient in rectifying the major defect of the ceiling. The Forum relied on Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines "deficiency" as any fault, imperfection, or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity, or standard of a good or service.
Final Decision: The Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and awarded the complainant compensation of Rs. 45,000, damages of Rs. 4,000 for mental harassment, and costs of Rs. 2,000.

ORDER

Col. P.K. Vasudeva, Member— Complainant, Virinder Sharma instituted a complaint against M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, the manufacturer and M/s. Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited, Chandigarh, local dealer for replacement of his motor car—Esteem VX make 1998 as there were large number of defects which had not been rectified by the manufacturer/local dealer. Shri Virinder Sharma, complainant, purchased it in the name of M/s. Precto Engineers, Chandigarh which is a partnership concern having the complainant and his mother as partners. The price paid was Rs. 4.90 lakhs after deduction of discount of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant spent Rs. 62,000/- for insurance and also spent Rs. 4,500/- on accessories. The delivery of the car was taken through M/s. Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited, respondent No. 3. After using the car for about 10-15 days the complainant found a large number of defects in the car and he wrote a letter dated 16.4.1998 to respondent No. 1 with a copy to respondent No. 2 Regional Office, Maruti Udyog Limited, Sector 8C, Chandigarh mentioning the following major defects in the car :

(i) Upholstery of the roof is coming down (sagging);

(ii) All the doors are rattling;

(iii) Noise in the rear wheels;

(iv) Air conditioner totally defective; and

(v) Tyres MRF Zigma CC noisy.

There were other minor defects also noticed like rubber of window glass, steering assembly, switches were not proper, fuel pump giving trouble during heat, starter motor getting stuck, rear view mirror defective, etc. In response to the aforesaid letter, respondent No. 2 advised the complainant to contact the local dealer, respondent No. 3 for rectification of the defects. Respondent No. 3 carried out the defects vide Annexure C-V and are reproduced as under :

1. Combination switch replaced for retelling noise.

2. LHS side rear view mirror replaced due to noise.

3. Roof lining replaced (sagging problem).

4. Engine tuning done, fuel filter found clogged (replaced).

5. Ft. LHS door glass adjusted and weather/strip replaced.

6. Partition trim adjusted, clamp fixed properly.

7. AC performance checked and found satisfactory. Grill Temp, found 5.7° to 6°C and Cabin Temp. 19.1°C.

8. Noise from tyres is normal due to characteristic noise of tyres tread — MRF Zigma CC.

9. Vehicle road tested with customer after repair performance of vehicle w.r.f. noise found satisfactory. However, we will keep it under observation.

10. Starter Motor checked and found OK as of now.

2. The complainant was not satisfied hence he put his remarks on the job card as under :

“There is steering noise noticed and test drive taken by Head Mechanic and observed that all doors are making noise very badly. First they agreed to sign the defects but now the MD of Company refused to sign the defects he himself observed while taking the test drive. The car was scratched on driver’s side while servicing.”

3. The complainant put forward his claim which is reproduced as under :

(a) Replacement of car.

(b) An amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs may be awarded to the complainant for harassment, mental torture and unsafety of life.

(d) The complainant may also be awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 with interest.

(e) It is also prayed that cost of litigation may be awarded to the complainant.

4. In a reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 a few preliminary objections have been raised that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as the car in question was purchased by M/s. Precto Engineers for commercial purpose and that the present complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant. The respondents have also averred that as per the terms and conditions of warranty all the necessary repairs were made and the defective parts of the car were also replaced. The warranty period was for 12 months or the car run of 20,000 kms. whichever event occurs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document