PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

            Petitioner/complainant purchased a diesel Zen Maruti Car from the respondent – M/s Pasco Automobiles, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.  Alleging that the car did not render satisfactory service and had developed manufacturing and technical defects, she filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh (for short ‘the District Forum’) seeking its replacement or in the alternative refund of Rs.4,24,607/- with interest @ 18%.  On notice by the District Forum, the respondents/opposite parties resisted the claim.  Parties were thereafter called upon to lead their evidence which were perused and after hearing their counsel, the District Forum held the manufacturer, respondent No.2 before us deficient in providing service and directed them to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation and another sum of Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

          Both the parties thereafter filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (for short ‘the State Commission’).  While the complainant prayed for the replacement of the vehicle or in the alternative enhanced compensation, the respondent/opposites sought the dismissal of the order passed by District Forum.  After a thorough consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant, thereby dismissing the complaint itself vide its order dated 28.8.2003 and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/opposite parties.

          Aggrieved against this order of the State Commission that the petitioner/complainant has filed this revision petition.

          Record of the case has been perused and the learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has strenuously argued that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that there was recurrence of defects in the vehicle spread over the entire period and further that because of the additional weight of 130 k.g. due to the switch over from petrol to diesel engine for which the car perhaps was not designed, the defects could not be set right.  The State Commission has failed to appreciate that while the car had to be taken to the workshop within four days of its purchase, it had to make five visits between 17.11.1998 to 1.1.1999.  Similarly, by 11.11.99, the car had to be taken 15 times for various defects, minor as well as major and they were at times attended to but all the defects were never set right.  Learned counsel submits that repeated defects relating to LHX Axle, engine noise, cylinder head diesel leakage, repeated coolant leakage, suspension defects, gear noise etc. prove that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defect.  Referring to the view expressed by the State Commission that cars normally need to be taken to the workshop for running service/repairs every 5000 kms.  and since this car was being run  at this rate almost every month, by normal standard, it should have gone to the workshop 12 times for doing 60,000 kms. and if the same had not been done, it would reflect poor maintenance ; learned counsel submits that this is a perverse findings inasmuch as  the District Forum on appreciation of evidence had categorically arrived at the findings that the repeated visits were necessitated because of the recurring defects in the car and not because of normal wear and tear.

          Contending further, learned counsel stated that since the vehicle had to be taken repeatedly to the workshop for the same defects  it is a clear case of deficiency in service and the petitioner/ complainant is entitled to replacement of the vehicle or in the alternative substantial compensation for harassment, loss of time, money, mental agony and other sufferings.  He has referred to the judgements in this regard to Tata Motors Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Ajay Rishi & Anr.  as reported in III (2008) CPJ 107 (B) and Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Gajanan Y. Manderekar as reported in 1997 (5) SCC 507.

          On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/opposite parties has contended that there has been no deficiency of service on part of the respondents whatsoever. While, the District Forum has failed to take cognizance of the fact that the vehicle within four days of its purchase had been run for 1094 kms., it had clocked a reading of 4325 kms. within a period of 20 days.  Similarly, as per the job cards referred to by the petitioner/complainant, by 11.11.99, the vehicle had run 58,759 kms.,  thus making it on an average to 5000 kms. of running per month.  Contending further that as per the maintenance - manual the car is required to be serviced/checked after a run of every 5000 kms., the State Commission was fully justified in holding that for over use of the car it had to be repeatedly taken to the workshop for its proper upkeep and maintenance and the number of visits perse would not amount to inherent manufacturing defect in the car and it cannot be said that there has been deficiency in service, especially when all the complaints have been truthfully entered in the job cards and attended to promptly.   In so far as the defects are concerned, the counsel states that they are highly exaggerated. The petitioner/complainant had availed all the three free services during the period of warranty and never pointed out any serious problem/defect.  The complainant went fully satisfied with the service rendered.  On the contrary, shaft assembly front, drive  LH of axle, mounting, stopper and Comp RR Trq. which have been blown out of proportion to be the major defects were changed on 5.12.1998 under warranty.  The vehicle was extensively used and covered 55,656 km by 23.10.99 and until this date no mechanical or technical defect attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture was ever pointed out by the complainant.  Thus, the State Commission has very rightly held that the repeated visits to the workshop was due to extensive use of the car and since the respondent had attended to the defects which occurred due normal wear and tear promptly, there is no deficiency of service on part of the respondent.  He has, therefore, submitted that the revision petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 

  We have also perused the records of the case. 

          Suffice it to say that even the District Forum, after a thorough analysis of the evidence before it in para 17 has stated as under :-

“Then successfully on 15 occasions, a number of defects some of them serious were pointed out by the complainant to opposite party No.1.   The latter rectified some of them but some of them could not be rectified by it.  Some of these defects were really serious.  Therefore, the complainant had met with a mishap at the very outset, and even from these 15 visits of the car, to the workshop of opposite party No.1 it may be safely concluded that the car was suffering from some serious defects, though strictly speaking they may not be manufacturing defects.”

(emphasis added)

          Further, the same view has been reiterated in para 29 thereof wherein the District Forum has held that the defects pointed out by the complainant were not manufacturing defects.  It was only thereafter that the District Forum has ordered a compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant because of the repeated problems in the car. 

          The only point that, therefore, needs consideration is whether the repeated visits, say on 15 occasions within a period of 11 months  amounted to any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.  The District Forum has drawn a conclusion that these numerous visits perse prove that the car was suffering from some serious defects.  The State Commission has, however, held that there was nothing unusual about the repeated visits because the car was being run @ 5000 kms. per month and for such extensive use it required regular service/repair and had to be taken to the workshop.  Besides the job cards faithfully reflect the defects most of which are minor in nature arising out of over use of the car and whatever major repairs required during the warranty period were satisfactorily carried out by the workshop.  The State Commission, in our view, therefore, rightly held that no adverse inference should have been drawn on account of the repeated visits to the workshop.

          We also find that the District Forum has failed to seriously considered the report submitted by the inspection team led by Lt. Col. J.S.Sekhon pointing out the various deformities/defects noticed at the time of inspection, as a result of extensive use of the car and also their finding that the speedometer of the car had been tempered with for ulterior motive.  The District Forum ought to have taken a serious view of this conduct of the complainant especially when the inspection had been carried out in the presence of complainant’s representative.

          Another point on which great stress was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to the additional weight of 130 k.g. being foisted on the structure of a petrol Zen Car because of the diesel engine mounted thereon.  We are afraid, the same having been certified and cleared by the Automotive Research Association of India confirming the compliance of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules cannot be considered as any structural deficiency since such certifications are issued only after extensive trials and rigorous tests.  In our view, the complainant having extensively used ; rather over used the car cannot take advantage of its own doings and blame the opposite party for deficiency in service.  The citations relied upon too are clearly distinguishable.  Under the circumstances and view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.