The warranty covers only defective part replacement, not complete vehicle substitution, as held in relevant Supreme Court precedents.

These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Inderjeet Singh against the common order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.1021 of 2009 & First Appeal No.1031 of 2009.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.08.2008 the petitioner purchased a new Maruti Alto car model, RF Alto having Chassis No.1192679 and Engine No.3540388. One –month after the purchase i.e. on 11.09.2008 the petitioner went for regular service but the complaint made by the petitioner about the “abnormal wobbling of the rear left side tyre” was overlooked and ignored by respondent No.2. On 17.09.2008, the petitioner again observing the same problem in the rear wheels of his car, visited the dealer and complained about the same, a job card was prepared, but the dealer were not able to rectify the problem existing in the car. Thereafter, the petitioner on number of times visited the service center (dealer) and even complained about the fault present in the car to the manufacturer, but nothing effective was done by the respondents to rectify the defect present in the car.

3. Hence the complainant preferred a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum vide its order dated 15.6.2009 ordered the vehicle to be inspected by the Local Commissioner. Local Commissioner submitted its report before the District Forum. The District Forum ordered replacement of the car by new Maruti Alto car, alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.

4. Both the opposite parties have preferred appeals being no.1021 of 2009, filed by M/s Tricity Autos and No.1031 of 2009 filed by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.. The State Commission vide its order dated 18.4.2011 set aside the order of the District Forum for replacement of the car and ordered replacement of the defective parts, however, order in respect of compensation and cost was maintained.

5. Hence two revision petitions.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the M/s. Tricity Autos. None appeared on behalf of the manufacturer Maruti Udog Ltd.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that right from the very beginning of purchase of the car, there was a problem of wobbling in the rear wheels and the vehicle was taken to the dealer five times for rectification of the defect. The dealer could not remove the defect completely, therefore, the manufacturer was also informed, however, there was no response from the manufacturer. The District Forum had appointed expert who has concluded its report as follows:-

“Conclusion:

The car in question is serviceable and roadworthy as there is no wobbling defect at present, but the Tube Assembly mounting Nuts & Bolts, Center Cap Nuts and Original Sealing has been tempered and Local Etching of Part No.The Tube Assembly shows that the Tube Assembly of the vehicle inspected has been recently replaced.”

8. From the above report, it is clear that when the complaint was filed certain defective parts of the car were replaced by some locally manufactured parts and not with genuine parts, which is a clear deficiency on the part of the dealer because the vehicle was parked with the dealer. In any new car when certain parts need to be replaced, then this is a clear case of manufacturing defect otherwise there was no need to replace the part in a new car. Thus, clearly the manufacturer and the dealer both are deficient in their services and the