Pronounced on : 11th December , 2014 ORDER JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The complainant Dr. Hirak I Desai purchased a Maruti Baleno car from the Chairman of Maruti Udyog Ltd. –OP1, Mr. Hirak I. Desai-OP-2 and M/s Kataria Automobiles Ltd.-OP-3, who is the dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited for a sum of Rs.5,88,086/- which also included lifetime tax in the RTO in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. During the warrantee period, when the car had travelled for 13,000 kms., all of a sudden its engine broke down dead on 26.04.2007. The said vehicle was taken to Opponent No. 3. The complainant was informed that the engine had broken down as the crank bolt of the car was destroyed as it failed to hold the pressure and the engine of the car would be replaced within 12 to 15 days. 2. On 27th April 2007, he was informed by the OP-3 that the half engine of the car would be changed and the OP-1 is looking for a half engine and the complainant would be informed by 23rd March 2007. No information was sent and therefore, the complainant met the OP-3. OP-3 informed him that it would not change the half engine but would change the crank bolt No.17. On enquiries, it transpired that the half engine was not available in the market and therefore, it could not be replaced. The complainant had written letters on 12.03.2007 and 27.06.2007 to the opponents but it evoked response only from OP-3. Since the car could not be repaired, therefore, the present complaint was filed. 3. The OPs admitted that the half engine was not available with the OP-1. However, the Company managed to get the half engine and arranged to send it to OP-3 and under special circumstances, the half engine was fitted on 27.07.2007. The Opponent took trial for three days. On 03.08.2007, the complainant was asked to take delivery of the car. The complainant went there and being not satisfied, refused to take the delivery of the car. The car is still lying in the garage of OP-3. It was contended that there was no manufacturing defect. OPs-1 & 2 stated that they are ready to replace any spare parts without costs in the warrantee period. They do not take extra charge for the said replacement It, however, contended that they did not admit of replacing the engine. It is contended that the complainant had also taken the trial of the car and he was fully satisfied. However, he refused to take delivery of the car. 4. The District Forum directed that the OPs should refund the costs of car in the sum of Rs.5,88,086/- being the costs of car. He also directed OP-1 to pay Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and costs. OP-1 was permitted to take the car from OP-3. 5. Aggrieved by that order, the Maruti Udyog Ltd.-OP-1 filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no expert evidence which may go to support the case of the complainant. It was also brought to the notice of the Commission that the OP-1 has stopped manufacturing of this model. He has also invited our attention towards various authorities. In the case of “C.N. Anantharam Versus Fiat India Ltd. and Ors. etc.etc.” AIR 2011 SC 523. Para No. 17 of the said judgment runs as follows:- “17. From the facts as disclosed, it appears that apart from the complaint relating to noise from the engine and the gear box, there was no other major defect which made the vehicle incapable of operation, particularly when the engine was replaced with a new one. However, in addition to the directions given by the National Commission, we direct that if the independent technical expert is of the opinion that there are inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle and the lifetime tax and EMI along with interest @ 12% per annum and costs, as directed by the State Commission.” 7. He has also referred to another authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Marruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr. (2006) 4 SC644, wherein para No. 9, it was held:- “9. In Corpus Juris Secundrum the observations to which reference was made by the High Court read as follows: On a sale of a motor vehicle by a manufacturer to dealer there may be an implied warranty that it is reasonably fit for, or adapted to, the uses for which it is made and sold; and such warranty is not excluded by the silence of the contract of sale as to warranties.” 8. He has also cited judgments of this Commission. In Maruti Udyog Limited versus Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 229 (NC) and Maruti Udyog Ltd. Versus Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. versus Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad Doranda, Revision Petition No. 1652 of 2006, decided on 07.05.2010. 9. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner have force in a measure. The following para in the written statement filed by the OP-3 are germane to the present controversy:- “9. In fact, that the subject vehicle was received by the present opponent from the complainant on 27-04-2007 for the first time and the problem explained by the complainant was of power steering hard and AC not working. After inspection of the vehicle, it was found that the crankshaft bolt that was fitted with the crank-shaft pulley was cracked and need to be replaced. Hence, the present opponent had intimated the complainant accordingly that it will take 12-15 days for the replacement. But unfortunately, the present opponent was not able to deliver the car on the said date, the reason being the half engine was not readily available with Maruti Udyog Ltd. But some how the present opponent received the half engine arranged by Maruti Udyog Ltd. as a very special case and replace it on 28-07-2007. After taking 3 days continuous trial, the present opponent had intimated the complainant for taking the delivery of the vehicle on 3-8-2007, but the complainant was out of station for his personal work. After the complainant returned back from his personal trip, he refused to take the delivery of the subject vehicle and the vehicle is lying in the premises of the opponent. That the service engineer of the opponent no.1 had inspected the vehicle and decided to replace certain components warranted replacement in order to rectify the demanded repair and the same was carried out under warranty free of charge to the complainant. That the subject vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defect……………” 10. OPs-1 & 2 mentioned in their written statement:- “I say that the vehicle in question approached to respondent no. 3 vide job card no. JC07001207 dated 27.4.2007 at 15,769 Kms. The service engineer inspected the vehicle and decided to replace certain components warranted replacement in order to rectify the demanded repair. The respondents never decided to replace certain components of the engine instead of replacing half engine assembly due to non-availability of the half engine assembly of the model in question, as alleged. The complainant has made baseless averments. The complainant has no right to claim replacement of any component as per his own choice without any cause. The alleged defective components were replaced and vehicle was made in perfect roadworthy condition. The complainant had taken a trial after the repair and replacement of component and was fully satisfied with the performance of the vehicle but the customer refused to take delivery and did not sign the satisfaction note. Instead he was unduly demanding replacement of vehicle. A request letter dated 9.10.2007 was also sent by respondent no. 3 to the complainant to collect the vehicle. The copies of the above job card dated 27.4.2007 and letter dated 9.10.2007 are enclosed as Annexure-7 and 8 respectively.” 11. Again, the report of the surveyor carries infinite value. Mr. Ankur A Pandya, Surveyor Loss Assessor submitted his report dated 25.11.2010 which mentions that “engine was not working, all lights and meters are not working, wiring was cut from places, clutch and brakes, steering and Comp. were found to be jammed, gear box was not working. Suspension system front and rear suspension were corroded”. This report is very important and belies the arguments advanced by the OPs. The car was not in working condition and the complainant did not take the same. The cat is out of bag. There was no need of expert’s evidence. Admission coming out from horse’s mouth itself and the surveyor report are solid and unflappable evidence. These have put the case of the complainant in an impregnable position. OPs have tried to pull the wool in the eyes of Law and its customers. Till 2010 the car was not in a road-worthy condition. 12. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we hereby order that the OPs-1 & 3 will return the car in road-worthy position in favour of the complainant, within fifteen days from the receipt of copy of this order. They will also give further warranty and three free services during the period of one year. They are given liberty to produce or provide the requisite spare parts and rectify the defects, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant will be entitled to costs of Rs. 500/- per day till the car is handed over to him. 13. We further impose costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on the OPs in favour of the complainant for harassment and mental agony to the complainant. It is quite clear that the complainant did not have the benefit of the car for a period of 7 years. 14. In the alternative, if the OPs have stopped manufacturing the said model and spare parts, in that event, the order of the State Commission shall prevail as per Law laid down in the “Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Another versus N.Siva Kumar and Another” (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654, and it will become executable after the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the copies of the order of this Commission to both the parties. | 
