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 order of the District Forum was totally justified for replacing the vehicle. However, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum for replacing the car and allowed only the compensation and the cost awarded by the District Forum. It was stated by the learned counsel that the car is still with the dealer and after about more than 10 years the vehicle must have become unusable and no purpose will be solved for the petitioner/complainant, and the complainant must get the price of the vehicle. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the dealer/respondent M/s. Tricity Autos stated that if there was any manufacturing defect, the manufacturer Maruti Udog Ltd., should be held responsible and not the dealer. He further stated that the allegation that certain parts have been replaced with local part is totally wrong because the dealer had his own mechanic and the defective parts would have been replaced by genuine parts by the mechanic of the workshop. It was alleged that the dealer had replaced the defective parts with genuine parts in the workshop, however, if later on certain parts were found to be of a local nature, the same could have been done by the complainant as he might have taken the vehicle to local repairer for verifying the repairing done by the dealer. 10. Learned counsel further stated that the car is occupying the space in the workshop of the dealer of which the complainant has to pay the rent. He was ready to even relinquish the rent, provided complainant takes away the car immediately. 11. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the dealer. I also examined the material on record. As the vehicle was under warranty period and if there was some defect in the car the manufacturer and the dealer were obliged to remove that defect either by repair or by replacing the defective parts. The warranty is only limited to repair and replacement of the defective parts and not the total replacement of the car as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.N.Anantharam Vs. Fiat India Limited and ors., (2011) 1 SCC 460, wherein the following has been observed:- “18. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reference was made to the decision of this Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra [(2006) 4 SCC 644], in which it was, inter alia, held that if the manufacturing defect was established, then replacement of the entire item or the replacement of the defective parts, is only called for. In fact, reference was made to the warranty condition which referred only to replacement of only the defective parts and not the car itself. This Court held that from the various documents exhibited it would appear that the 14manufacturer had indicated that it was necessary to download the engine to trace the problem which has been complained of, but there was no agreement to replace the engine. Moreover, when the manufacturer asked for the vehicle to be brought in for the purpose of downloading the engine, the Respondent did not do so and, accordingly, to infer that there was any manufacturing defect in the said background was without any foundation. However, the relief was moulded so that the defective part could be replaced without requiring the purchaser to pay any charge. 12. Thus, under the warranty the defective parts were replaced and the expert has also given its opinion that the car was serviceable and was not suffering from defect of wobbling and was in a roadworthy condition. Thus, there was no ground that the complainant should not have taken the car from the workshop for his use. It seems that complainant had not taken his car at his own sweet will. The expert has also found replacement of some parts with local parts and this deficiency is to be attributed to the opposite parties. Hence, in the present scenario of the case, the following order seems to be justified and the same is passed: Apart from the compensation and cost already ordered by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission, the opposite parties will pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant and will hand over the car to the complainant after fully repairing the same as per the order of the State Commission and making it in roadworthy condition within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant is directed to take the possession of the car as above. 13. With the above directions, RP No.2503 of 2011 and RP No.2504 of 2011 stand disposed of. | 
