IMPORTANT POINT
Mere hearsay, allegations in the complaint cannot be considered as evidence.

Rajyalakshmi Rao Member—These revision petitions are preferred by M/s Maruti Udyog Limited against the common order, dated 10.3.2004, passed by the State Commission, Goa, in Appeal Nos. 10 and 13 of 2002, whereby petitioner’s appeal was disposed of by modifying the order passed by the District Forum, dated 12.2.2002, in compliant No.109 of 1997, filed by Mr. Casino Dias, the original complainant, wherein the petitioner and respondent No. 2 M/s Sai Service Station Limited (original opposite party No.1) were directed to jointly and severally replace various defective parts and make it roadworthy within thirty days and awarded Rs. 5,000 as compensation. The State Commission modified that order and by common order in both the appeals directed the petitioner and respondent No.2 to replace the vehicle along with further compensation of Rs. 10,000 and also Rs. 3,000 towards costs. Aggrieved by this order, M/s Maruti Udyog is in review here and we decide both the revision petitions by a Common Order.

Brief facts of the case are:

2. Respondent No.1 Casino Dias, (the original complainant), booked new Maruti Omni Van with respondent No. 2 M/s Sai Service Station Limited (original OP No.1 ), who is the authorised dealer of petitioner M/s Maruti Udyog Limited (Original OP No. 2). The vehicle was delivered on 3.1.1997 to respondent No.1 after receipt of Rs.1,93,028.53, but he alleged that the vehicle right after the delivery itself started giving problems. In his complaint he stated that this was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 repeatedly i.e., on 6.1.1997 and 10.1.1997 etc. The vehicle had also got the servicing done on 13.1.1997, 20.1.1997 and 23.1.1997. It was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 that there was ‘wobbling’ sound when the vehicle was plying in third gear, which has also been recorded in the job order on 23.1.1997 and other defects enlisted are starting problem; check 3rd gear noise and reverse gear problem; check roof light not working; check rear noise; check vibrate….not working and check dicky doors. Subsequently, repairs of roof light, door switch, wiring, servicing, setting of doors and clutch setting were done by respondent No. 2.

3. Again on 5.2.1997, it was pointed out to respondent No. 2 that the defect of wobbling could not be rectified. Then, respondent No. 2 replaced propallar shaft assembly on 17.2.1997 and about six days thereafter again the vehicle was taken to 2nd respondent for checking of rear noise; starting problem; dicky door noise; all doors setting and greasing. Ball bearings were also replaced on the same day. On 11.3.1997, the vehicle was taken to respondent No. 2 for second servicing and again respondent No. 2 replaced front bearings of two wheels and also did balancing of the vehicle, which is shown in the job card. Respondent No.1 protested and made a note on the bill card on 11.3.1997 that there was constant wobbling and that defect has not been removed. Respondent No. 1 sent a letter dated 17.3.1997 to respondent No. 2 demanding for replacement of the vehicle, and after receipt of the letter, respondent No. 2 called the respondent No.1 telephonically on 17.4.1997.

4. Respondent No.1 left the vehicle with respondent No. 2 with the hope that the vehicle would be replaced. But, later, he learnt that respondent No. 2 only replaced gear box casing; six gear box bearings; front wheel bearings and also differential backlas setting and engine toned up as per the job card. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 had replaced major parts of the vehicle including the tyres of the vehicle, which goes to show that there is inherent manufacturing defects, which could not be rectified. Hence, when respondent No. 2 informed respondent No. 1 on 4.5.1997 to take the vehicle from the workshop, he declined to take the vehicle back, unless it is replaced by a new vehicle. Thereafter, a legal notice was served by respondent No. 1, when there is no response from responden