These revision petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the common impugned order dated 8.9.2011 passed in cross appeals passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand, Dehradun (hereinafter referred as ‘State Commission’) in First Appeals No.80 and 85 of 2008.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that on 30-03-2001 Smt. Asha Jain purchased a car manufactured by the O.P. No.1 being a Maruti Zen LX Euro II, Model No.579994, Engine no.146675 bearing Reg. no.UA 07A 9470, from the O.P. No.2 According to the complainant from the very beginning the car suffered from the problem of hard steering due to which she faced difficulty in turning the vehicle on road bends and on the hills. The complainant took the vehicle to the O.P. No.2 on 13-10-2001. The complainant took the vehicle to the O.P. No.2 many times and according to the job cards, the following comments were recorded for the complaints made:-

3.      According to the complainant on 11-08-2003 and on 18-08-2003 the vehicle  was taken to the O.P. and was repaired but defect remained. Even after the above said repairs, defects remained in the car. So complainant has filed the present complaint. O.P. No.1 has said in its reply that the warranty was for 24 months, which expired in 2003, and since the complaint was filed after one year and three months after the warranty, the complaint is not maintainable.  There is no cause of action against the answering O.P. Whenever vehicle was handed over to the O.P. No.2 the steering  of the vehicle was checked and was found O.K. O.P. No.2 had repaired steering problems without any cost under the warranty period. The complainant is not entitled for the change of vehicle or the price of the car.  There are no problems with the car. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against answering O.P. O.P. No.2 has said in his reply that according to the above mentioned Job Cards whenever the vehicle was left at the workshop, vehicle repaired in warranty period.  On 24-08-2002 the vehicle was brought for accident job, which was examined by Mr. Ashutosh Duggal, MarutiUdyog Ltd. who is an expert in this field and according to the Job Card No.56734 complete column Assembly, steering case and bush were changed under the warranty period. On 11-08-2003 Mr. Manoj Arora, Service Engineer, MarutiUdyog Ltd. Gurgaon examined the vehicle and changed its R.P. System. On that date vehicle had driven over 17543 KM. and the complainant had written a satisfaction note.  Therefore the complainant is neither entitled to a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- nor any compensation. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The District Forum vide its order dated  12.03.2008 allowed the complaint as under:

“The case is allowed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the O.P. No.1 M/s. MarutiUdyog Ltd. The complainant is entitled to receive Rs.3,00,000/- from the said O.P. No.1 the complainant is also entitled to receive interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum from the date of judgment, from the O.P. No.1. Apart from this , the complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the physical and mental harassment.

        After the O.P. No.1 deposit the amount of money before this forum, the complainant will return the car alongwith its papers to the O.P. No.1 and will also transfer its registration in its favour. After this process she will be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the O.P. No.1 before this forum.”

5.      Both the parties preferred first appeals before the State Commission against the above order of the District Forum.  The State Commission vide its common order dated 8.9.2011 dismissed both the appeals.

6.      Hence, the present revision petitions.

7.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As these are cross revision petitions, the parties shall be addressed as complainant and OP. 

8.      The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that though the District Forum has allowed the compensation of Rs.3 lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order of the District Forum but, it is not sufficient in the case because the full purchase value of the car Rs.3,42,000/- should have been returned and the interest on purchase value  should also have been awarded from the date of complaint at least.  The learned counsel further pleaded that right from the very beginning the defect of hardness in the steering was present and the job cards available on the file mentioned this defect.  Every time the workshop has repaired the vehicle but the problem has persisted. Even when the part of the steering assembly was changed after the inspection of the authorized Engineer of the O.P. company, the problem has persisted and therefore it has to be treated as manufacturing defect. Due to this defect, the car has met with an accident thrice on 16.8.2002, 2.10.2003 and 19.8.2004. This was the second car and the complainant was already driving a car before purchase of this car. Hence, it cannot be said that the complainant may not have experienced the difference in the hardness of steering of a good car and a defective car. Moreover, it can also not be said that the accidents occurred due to inexperience of the complainant.

9.      It was further pointed out by the learned counsel that the claim of the OP company that the District Forum  has allowed the complaint without having an expert report which was necessary to prove the manufacturing defect, cannot be accepted because  the mechanics in the authorized   garage were the experts in their own right and  the car had  been inspected by authorized Engineer,  Mr. Ashutosh Duggal, an expert of Maruti Company on 24.8.2002 and  it was further inspected by Mr. Manoj Arora, Service Engineer of Maruti Company on 11.8.2003. Following the advice given by the Service Engineer Mr. Manoj Arora, a complete Rack Pinion and Steering assembly and Left Strut Mount were changed under warranty period. Even then, the defect persisted and the complainant wrote a letter dated 18.8.2003 to M.D., MarutiUdyog Ltd. alongwith copy to the Dealer. The complainant was not satisfied and the defect of hardness in the steering persisted even after replacement of the steering assembly.  It is wrong to say that the complainant gave any satisfaction note dated 11.8.2003 as has been claimed by the OP company. The signature of the complainant on this satisfaction note are fabricated as the delivery was not taken by the complainant herself.  The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

i.)                                                                                        M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. vs. M/s. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. and anther ,  2008(1) CPR 318 )NC);

ii)                                                                                        Vinod Bhagat vs. General Motors (India ) Ltd. and another,  First Appeal No.150 of 1998 passed by this Commission on 30.1.2003;

iii)R. Raja Rao vs. M/s. Mysore Auto Agencies and another, First Appeal No.455 of 1997 passed by this Commission on  27.2.2006.;

iv)  M/s. Scooters India Ltd. and another vs. MadhabanadaMohanty and others, Revision Petition No.240 of 2002 passed by this Commission on 7.2.2003;

v)                                                                                            Ford India Private Ltd. vs. Michael Edinburg and another, First Appeal No.158 of 2016  passed by this Commission on 14.3.2016;

vi)   Love Kumar Sharma vs. Cargo Motors (P) Ltd. and another, Revision Petition No.1843 of 2011 passed by this Commission on 2.7.2015   and

vii)   M/s. R.N.A. Builders (NG)  vs. Shri Kalikant Mishra,

2011 NCJ 646 (NC)

10.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP Maruti Company stated that the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant every time it was brought to the workshop. The complainant has given a satisfaction note duly signed by her on 11.08.2003 which clearly mentions that she was totally satisfied after the steering assembly was changed. The learned counsel for the OP company further referred to the warranty clause and argued that the warranty is not for replacement of the whole vehicle, rather, warranty allows repairing/replacement of the defective parts, if any. Hence, in any case, the replacement of the vehicle cannot be allowed, if only one part was found to be defective, which itself is disputed in the present case because no expert report has been filed by the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect. The learned counsel  for the OP company referred to the following judgments in support of his contentions:

i)   MarutiUdyog India Ltd. vs. Ms.Kanika Bhargava and others, Revision Petition No.4176 of 2008 passed by this Commission on 24.9.2015

ii)  Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Deepak Goyal and others, Revision Petition N.2309 of 2008 passed by this Commission on 30.1.2015,

iii) MarutiUdyog Ltd. vs. Sushel Kumar Gabgotra and another, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 644,

iv) C.N. Anantharam vs. Fiat India Limited and others, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 460

11. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and perused the record. The fact is that the complainant has been reporting hardness of steering from the very beginning, though it seems that it was not reported during the first free service of the vehicle as is evident from the job chart. The problem of hardness of steering has persisted continuously, even though it was repaired many times by the Authorised Service Station of the OP.  There is no force in the argument of the OP that no expert report is available confirming this  defect, when the Service Engineer of OP Maruti Company  Mr. Manoj Arora himself has found the defect and advised complete replacement of steering assembly. The OP insurance company has taken shelter under the satisfaction note  said to have been singed and issued by the complainant,  whereas, the learned counsel for the complainant has denied this and has alleged that this was a forged document which was never signed by the complainant. The complainant herself has written a letter to the M.D. of OP Maruti Company that even after the replacement of the steering assembly, the problem of hardness of steering has persisted.  Thus, it is difficult to believe that on one side the complainant signs the satisfaction note and on the other side, she writes a letter to the M.D. mentioning persistence of the defect. The job card dated 30.8.2007 mentions description of the Jobs as Running Repair and Vehicle washing and cleaning. However, there is further endorsement in handwriting relating to body check/steering check (Hard). This shows that hardness of steering perhaps was also there even in 2007. The vehicle has met with accidents thrice on 16.8.2002, 2.10.2003 and 19.8.2004. Though it cannot be conclusively said that all the accidents happened due to hardness of steering but three accidents in such a short span of time seem to be  unusual  for a normal car. Therefore, the implication can be that hardness of steering has somewhere contributed in some or all the accidents to some extent.

12.    I have also gone through the judgments submitted by both the parties in their favour.  However, the facts of each case are different and the present case is based on peculiar set of facts and circumstances and therefore, it has been analysed in its entirety keeping in view different aspects of the case.  

13. Based on the above examination, I find that there is no doubt that there was defect of hardness of steering right from the  very beginning. Now, the question is whether under the warranty clause, the company is liable to replace the vehicle or replace the concerned defective parts only. The District Forum has also not ordered for complete replacement of the vehicle, rather the District Forum has awarded the value of the car by allowing roughly 10% of depreciation.  It has been mentioned that the vehicle has run by now about 72000 kms. and the vehicle has become roughly 15 years old. The vehicle is already with the complainant and it is under use.  As the  papers of the vehicle were not handed over by the complainant to the OP company as per the order of the District Forum and the complainant also filed appeal before the State Commission, thus, the order of the District Forum was not implemented either by the OP or by the complainant. So, the litigation with regard to this vehicle has already  stretched over 10  years.  Though, one the one hand, it is true that there was some defect in the vehicle which hampered the free running of the vehicle by the complainant and she could not enjoy the benefits of a new car and she had to go to the repair workshop off and on,  but on the other hand, as the case has prolonged for so many years  and  the warranty does not allow the complete replacement of the whole vehicle,  I am of the view  that refund of roughly the  full value of the car alongwith interest is not justified.  In the circumstances of the case, the complainant definitely deserves a reasonable compensation for the sufferings and mental agony and for that the OP Maruti Company is directed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) to the complainant within a period of 30 days, failing which interest @ 9% shall be payable by the OP Maruti company from the date of this order till actual payment. Consequently, the order of the State Commission dated 8.9.2011 is set aside and the order dated   12.3.2008 passed by the District Forum stands modified accordingly. 

14.    Both the revision petitions are disposed of in terms of the above order.

15.    Parties shall bear their own cost.