Advocates:
PRAMOD DAYALMANJULA GUPTA

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 3734 of 2000

PETITIONER:

Maruti Udyog Ltd

RESPONDENT:

Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/03/2006

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a

Division Bench of the J & K High Court at Jammu dismissing

the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 17 of the J&K

Consumers Protection Act, 1988 (in short the ’Act’). Challenge

in the said appeal was to the order dated 9.11.1998 passed by

the J&K State Consumer Redressal Commission (in short the

’Commission’) on a complaint filed by respondent no.1. In the

complaint appellant and respondent no.2 were impleaded as

the opposite parties.

The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:

Respondent-complainant filed a compliant before the

Commission seeking a direction to the appellant herein to take

back the Maruti car back and repay an amount of

Rs.1,97,460.37 being the cost of the car supplied to him, along

with interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from

27.11.1996, as the car was defective. He also sought

compensation for the loss at his place of work and coaching

charges approximately Rs.60,000/-; Rs.1,00,000/- towards

mental agony, physical deterioration and emotional stress,

Rs.15,000/- for his trip to Karnal on the mistaken direction of

the appellant and also Rs.2,500/- towards the costs of

litigation and legal consultation.

Respondent No.1 complainant had purchased a Maruti

Car on 27.11.1996 from the appellant through its authorized

dealer, respondent No.2 herein, on payment of Rs.1,97,460.37

as sale price. After delivery of the car, the complainant

noticed that the clutch of the car was not functioning properly

as it developed unusual noise/jerks on running of the engine.

The defect was brought to the notice of respondent No.2,

whose engineer after examining the defect told the

complainant that the clutch is behaving erratically because of

the new engine and it will automatically adjust/become defect-

free after covering some mileage. But it did not happen that

way and on the other hand problem increased. He again

reported to respondent No.2 whereupon he was assured that

the defect will disappear after the first service which was done

on 19.12.1996. But the defect continued. The complainant

again approached respondent No.2 and was told that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

engine will have to be brought down to locate the trouble

which the engineers failed to pin point. The complainant

objected to it as the defect had developed within the warranty

period and approached the Head Office (Marketing) of the

appellant at Gurgaon. He wrote letter dated 19.2.1997

bringing to the appellant’s notice about the inherent

manufacturing defect in the car and requested for its

replacement. The appellant vide its letter dated 5.3.1997,

advised the complainant to take the car to Modern

Automobiles, Karnal, for getting the needful done. He took the

car to Karnal on 10.3.1997. But the said concern did not test

the vehicle on the ground that the same had been delivered by

respondent No.2 who was responsible and can repair the

vehicle. The complainant came back to Jammu. On 13.3.1997

the appellant conceded to have wrongly advised the

complainant to take the car to Karnal and asked him to again

approach respondent No.2 at Jammu. On 21.3.1997 Mr. H.S.

Chahal, Senior Engineer, Regional Office, Chandigarh,

examined the car but the defect could not be removed which

continued to give trouble. The matter was again reported to

the appellant and the complainant again visited respondent

No.2 on 17.4.1997 but had to return with persisting defect.

On 21.4.1997 the complainant addressed a letter to the

Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the appellant-company

about the manufacturing defect in the car s