PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

 1)        By this complaint the Complainant has prayed that it be declared that the Tata Indigo (GLS) Petrol Version Car purchased in the month of December, 2005 by the Complainant and manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 is having defect and the services offered by Opposite Party No.2 are deficient services.  It is prayed that the Opposite Party No.1 be directed to replace the car in question with a brand new car of the same specification.  It is also prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2 Lacs for the loss of facility of car by the Complainant and cost of this proceeding to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the Opposite Parties.

 2)        According to the Complainant, she is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to the as the Act).  The Opposite Party No.1 is the Manufacture of the vehicle and Opposite Party No.2 is the Dealer through whom the Complainant has purchased the vehicle in question.

 3)        It is alleged that the Complainant purchased the vehicle referred above by paying an amount of Rs.4,35,461/-, however, the said car started giving problems after problems.  The said car was produced for the purpose of servicing as well as repairs to the Authorized Dealer of Opposite Party No.1.  The Complainant has produced the chart at Exh.‘B’ showing the respective dates when the vehicle in question was handed-over to the employees of Opposite Party No.1 or the Dealers of Opposite Party No.1. According to the Complainant, the problems which were faced by the Complainant at the relevant time are mentioned in the last column of the said chart.  It is alleged that initially the Complainant was assured that there will be no problem after regular servicing as well as carrying out the minor repairs.  The Complainant has relied the correspondence as regards the problems faced by her about the vehicle in question which are marked as Exh.‘C’ colly.  It is submitted that in the month of January, 2009, the Complainant was asked to carry her car in Worli Workshop for getting the outstanding issues checked or getting outstanding issues repaired comprehensively.  The copy of the reply from the Opposite Party dtd.29/01/2009 is marked at Exh.‘D’.  According to the Complainant she has also made representation to the chairman of Opposite Party No.1 which is also annexed in the above referred compilation.  The Complainant had also approached Mumbai Grahak Panchayat by complaint dtd.02/02/2009 the copy of which is marked at Exh.‘E’. The said Panchayat forwarded the grievance of Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1vide letter dtd.04/03/2009 which is marked at Exh.‘F’.

 4)        According to the Complainant, on 10/02/09 meeting took place between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties and it was informed to the Complainant that for the purpose of carrying out re-checking and repairs etc. an amount of Rs.16,000/- will be required, however, as a special case, the Opposite Parties decided to waive the said amount of Rs.16,000/-.  The copy of the said letter dtd.17/03/09 is marked at Exh.‘G’.  The said letter was addressed to Mumbai Grahak Panchayat who in turn on 03/04/09 made a representation.  Copy of the said letter is marked at Exh.‘H’. 

 5)        It is submitted by the Complainant that from 16/02/09 the vehicle in question is lying with the Opposite Party, however, as the repair work was not carried out to the satisfaction of the Complainant, the Complainant ultimately decided not to accept the delivery of the said car unless and until all problems faced by her are resolved and since then the car is lying with the Opposite Party.

 6)        According to the Complainant, in the mean time on 24/04/2009 the Opposite Party wrote a letter to the Complainant stating that the Complainant should collect the car on or before 26/04/09 or otherwise she will be liable to pay Rs.200/- per day as parking charges.  In the said letter it was contended that the car was kept ready and the Opposite Party will not be responsible for any other claim. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant by letter dtd.24/04/2009, the copy of which is marked as Exh.‘I’.

 7)        It is the case of the Complainant that lastly the vehicle was handed over to the Complainant by the Opposite Party after carrying out necessary repairs and maintenance on 27/12/08 at that time also the assurance was given by the officers of the Opposite Party No.1 that there is no fault in the car in question and the said car is 100% fit. It is submitted that at the relevant time the car in question was in the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 at Pune and there on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 Mr. B.U. Bhandari and Mr. Kapil Kulkarni gave such assurance.  It is submitted that the Complainant accepted the delivery of the said car on their oral assurance at that time the bill for the said repair work was Rs.15,000/- approximately.  However, to create goodwill the Opposite Party No.1 decided to accept an amount of Rs.2,300/- only. It is alleged that the Opposite Party was aware that the goods required replacement instead of repairs and therefore, to cover up their own wrong much discount to the tune of Rs.12,000/- was given to the Complainant. 

 8)        It is the case of the Complainant that after accepting the delivery of the car in question on 27/12/08, because of receiving assurance from the Opposite Party that the vehicle is 100% fit and there is no problem with the said vehicle on the next day i.e. on 28/012/08 the said vehicle started creating problem and was unable to run.  Consequently by availing the crane service the said vehicle was brought to Mumbai at the residence of the Complainant. Thereafter the said vehicle was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 at Worli and since then the vehicle is lying in the said workshop. It is submitted that though the Opposite Party informed that the Complainant will be liable to pay parking charges from 26/04/09 @ Rs.200/- per day, if she would not take the delivery of the said vehicle, however, the Complainant has decided not to accept the said offer and not to respond the Opposite Party due to the previous bitter experience, the Complainant has therefore, filed this Complainant for the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.  It is submitted that there is defect in the goods which are manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1.  The said defects are major defects which require replacement of vehicle in question.  The said defects are manufacturing defects.  The services of the said vehicle offered by the Opposite Party are also deficient.  The Opposite Party No.1 could not remove the defects despite number of repairs which show that the service rendered by the Opposite Party is deficient.  It is submitted that by not complying the repairs by the Opposite Party through its workshop at Worli goes to show that it is an act which deprived the Complainant form using the vehicle in question for her day to day activities.  The Complainant has therefore, prayed for the reliefs mentioned in para 1 of this order.        

 9)        The Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint by filing written statement.  It is contended that the allegations made in the complaint are contrary and inconsistent which are alleged by the Complainant. The complaint is false, frivolous and misconceived and is liable to be rejected.   According to the Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.2 who is the authorized dealer has rendered prompt services when the vehicle was reported for servicing leaving the Complainant no reasons for any grievances.  It is contended by the Opposite Party No.1 during the manufacture of the vehicle it, pass through stringiened quality checks before passing through the works for sale to the dealer and finally to the end users.  It is contended that therefore, in the present case, a defect free vehicle has been sold to the Complainant through the Opposite Party No.2.  According to the Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant had filed the interim application seeking appointment of suitable expert for the purpose of inspection of the said vehicle and for report thereafter, however, at the time of arguments on the said application the submission was made on behalf of the Complainant that she does not press for the appointment of suitable expert.

 10)      It is the contention  of  the Opposite  Party  No.1 that the delivery of the vehicle was given on 15/12/2005 and warranty for the vehicle was for 18 months i.e. upto 15/06/2007.  The Complainant, however, filed the present complaint on 02/05/2009 i.e. after approximate 3 years and 6 months which is beyond the warranty period of 18 months and much beyond the period of limitation provided under the Act and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.  It is contended that the Complainant has deliberately taken a false plea and without an expert report, that the vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defect.  The Opposite Party No.1 contended that as the complaint is filed with ulterior motive to gain undue benefits from the Opposite Parties and as it is filed beyond the warranty the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Sec.26 of the Act.  It is contended that from the nature of the complaint and repairs carried out show that the same was of the nature of regular maintenance.  The Opposite Party No.1 relied clause No.4 & 6 of the warranty document which is Annexure 1 to the written statement.  It is submitted that averments regarding manufacturing defects in the complaint are totally false and frivolous in view of non compliance of the provision under Sec.13(1) (c), (d) of the Act. 

 11)      It is contended that the vehicle has been serviced at M/s. B.U. Bhandari Auto Pvt. Ltd., who has not been made a party to this complaint.  The complaint therefore, suffers from non joinder of necessary party and on that count the complaint is liable to be dismissed.           

 12)      The Opposite Party has explained the procedure for sale and after sale service in its written statement.  It is contended that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant was serviced by the Opposite Parties as and when the said vehicle was brought to them, within warranty period free of cost and as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and only the consumable were charged.  It is contended that the vehicle in question met with an accident of negligent driving on 26/09/06 and was brought to the Opposite Parties workshop for accidental repairs.  According to the Opposite Party NO.1, as per the terms and conditions of the Opposite Party, the warranty shall not apply, if the car is subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or an accident.  It is further contended that the Complainant’s vehicle was always attended promptly and to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The Complainant also singed satisfaction notes out of which one such note is marked at Exh.‘A’ to the written statement, from which it reveals that there is/was no manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question.  It is contended that the Complainant has used the vehicle since 15/12/05 to 16/02/2009.  It is submitted that the Opposite Parties eve after the said vehicle being used more than 3 years (even after warranty) as a gesture of goodwill, carried out repairs and waived off the repair charges of Rs.16,000/- as very special case. It is submitted that the Complainant since 16/02/2009 even after intimating several times by telephone, e-mails and then via mail dtd.24/04/09 from the Customer Care, TCRS – Worli of the Opposite Party No.1 that the said vehicle was ready for delivery intentionally avoided taking delivery of the said vehicle. The Complainant was also informed that the root cause of the Complainant’s car’s damaged to the engine wiring harness caused by rat nibbling and the same led to series of wiring problems resulting in components failure.  It was also informed to the Complainant that the said failure is not on account of manufacturing defect.  The Opposite Party also informed by its letter that if the delivery of the said vehicle was not taken by the Complainant she would be liable to pay parking charges.  It is contended that the Complainant instead of taking delivery of the vehicle, kept demanding replacement or refund and filed this complaint for unlawful gain.  The Opposite Party No.1 has thus, denied the claim made by the Complainant.  It is contended that the Complainant cannot expect eternal warranty for her vehicle as held by the National Commission and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The allegations made by the Complainant have been specifically denied parawise by the Opposite Party No.1 and it is submitted that complaint is liable to be dismissed.      

 13)      The Opposite Party No.2 almost reiterated the contentions raised by the Opposite Party No.1 by its written statement. It is contended that the nature of servicing was routine and nothing was abnormal. The Complainant’s vehicle had to undergo repairs on 01/10/06 since it met with an accident and not on account of the vehicle being defective.  It is specifically contended that the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect. The Opposite Party No.2 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 14)      The Complainant has filed rejoinder, affidavit in rejoinder and denied the contention raised by the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has also relied the evidence adduced by way of affidavit of one Shri. Laxaman Iyer.  The Opposite Party No.1 filed affidavit of Bipin Palekar, AGM (Law) Opposite Party No.2  filed affidavit of R.N. Sontakke, Works Manager.  The Opposite Party No.1 also filed affidavit of Shalini Sinha, Sr. Manager (Legal).  The Opposite Party No.2 also filed affidavit of . P.J. Thirani, Finance Manager of Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant has filed written argument and the Opposite Parties also filed their written arguments.  We heard Smt. Mrunalini Warunjikar, the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and Smt. Anita Marathe, the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties. 

 15)      Smt. Warunjikar Advocate in her argument pointed out the chart prepared by the Complainant regarding the problems faced by the Complainant from 15/12/2005 filed at Exh.‘B’ to the complaint.  She also relied the correspondence made with the Opposite Parties which is filed with the complaint. The Ld.Advocate for the Complainant also relied the affidavit of Laxaman Iyer and pointed out that as mentioned in his affidavit, the said witness who possesses mechanical engineering degree and practicing as Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor had inspected the vehicle of the Complainant and noticed the problem faced in the vehicle of the Complainant as mentioned in his affidavit. She made submission that the Complainant has placed on record the expert evidence regarding the defects noticed by him about the vehicle in question on affidavit and thus, proved the case that the vehicle in question is suffering from manufacturing defects.  She therefore, submitted that the prayer made by the Complainant for replacement of the brand new car of the same specification by the Opposite Parties is liable to be grated.  She also submitted that the compensation of Rs.2 Lacs for the loss of facility of car by the Complainant and cost of this proceeding to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the Opposite Parties is also just and proper.  In support of her submission she relied the observations in the following cases -

            1)  Hindustan Motors Ltd.  V/s. Mrs. Malwa Engineering Corporation and Ors.,

                 decided by the National Commission in First Appeal No.321/2000, dtd.24/05/01

2)       Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. V/s. Vasantrao Dagaji Patil, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.36 of 1996, dtd.24/05/2002.  and

3)       Tata Motors Ltd. V/s. Lachia Shetty, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2008 (1) CPR 440 (NC).

4)       Ashok Kesharlal Saraf (diseased to legal heir) V/s. Tata Motor Ltd., decided by State Commission, Maharashtra in Consumer Complaint No.66 of 1995, dtd.14/11/2005, reported in 2006 CTJ 157 (CP) (SCDRC).

 16)      The Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties Smt. Anita Marathe submitted that the complaint filed by the Complainant is barred by limitation as contended in the written statement.  She also relied the job card/service history placed on record filed alongwith reply of Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant’s application for allowing  production of expert’s evidence and certificate issued by the expert at Exh.‘1’.  She submitted that the said job card or service history is taken into consideration regarding the vehicle in question from the day of its purchase it will reveal that the Complainant availed the service from the Opposite Party No.2 and the repairs which were necessary were carried out by the Opposite Party No.2. She also pointed that the vehicle in question was produced by the Complainant in the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 for repairs due to accident on 01/10/06 i.e. within 12 months from the date of purchase of the said vehicle. Smt. Marathe Advocate also pointed out the clause of warranty document and submitted that the Complainant’s vehicle met with the accident on account of negligent driving on 26/09/06 and was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 for accidental repairs on 01/10/06.  She also pointed out that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the warranty shall not apply till the car is subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or an accident.  She therefore, submitted that the case made out by the Complainant that the vehicle in question was suffering from manufacturing defects is totally baseless.  She further submitted that the Complainant though filed application alongwith the complaint for the appointment of expert and its report the said application was not pressed by the Complainant.  She submitted that as per Sec.13(1)(c)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, in such type of case the Forum requires that the Complainant must obtain an “Appropriate laboratory report” at his own cost for proper adjudication of the allegations of the vehicle, being defective.  She made submission that AIRA, Pune is recognized laboratory from which the Complainant ought to have brought report in support of the case made out in the complaint. The Complainant, however, not pressed the application submitted alongwith the complaint for such opinion and report and later on filed the report of one Mr. Iyer and his affidavit which is sworn by him regarding the certificate issued by him is dtd.10/06/2011 wherein he has mentioned that he had inspected the car of the Complainant in May, 2006.  Smt. Marathe Advocate also pointed out that the said Iyer in his affidavit has specifically mentioned that the defects pointed out during his inspection at Sr.No.1 to 4 in his affidavit could be identified only by specific testing equipments with the relevant control parameters data for the captioned vehicle, which were not available at the garage. She also pointed that the said witness has also specifically submitted that the Complainant met him and made a request to give a certificate and the opinion which he had expressed when he had inspected the vehicle in May, 2006 and thereafter he had not inspected the vehicle again.  Smt. Marathe Advocate, thus, submitted that the evidence of Iyer relied by the Complainant is not anyway helpful to hold that there was/is manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question. The evidence of said witness after about 5 years of his alleged inspection cannot be safely relied upon. She also submitted that the Opposite Parties have attended the Complainant’s grievances from time to time and cured the problems faced by her.  The Complainant has also given note of satisfaction to the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1 – B.U. Bhandari Auto Pvt. Ltd. which is placed on record alongwith written statement of Opposite Party No.1 as Exh.‘A’ wherein the Complainant had certified that servicing/repairs have been carried out by the said dealer to her entire satisfaction and she had taken the test drive of her vehicle No.MH-20-AG-5303 which is trouble free now.  She pointed that such satisfaction note is given by the Complainant on 27/12/2008 i.e. after the warranty period.  She made submission that thereafter also the Opposite Parties waived Rs.16,000/- towards repairing charges of the Complainant’s vehicle. Smt. Marathe Advocate made submission that later on again when the vehicle was produced for repairs at the workshop of the Opposite Party No.1 at Worli, the Opposite Party have repaired the same and requested the Complainant to take the delivery of it vide its letter dtd.24/04/09, however, the Complainant did not accept the said request and filed the present complaint only with a view to harass the Opposite Parties and for unlawful gains. She therefore, submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties.  Smt. Marathe Advocate relied the following cases in support of her submissions -

            1)  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. V/s. B.G. Thakurdesai, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.51 of 1992, dtd.07/12/1992.

2)     M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. V/s. M.Mosa, decided by  Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.75/1994, dtd.27/09/1994

            3)  Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Mr. Ashok Saraff, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, decided on 12/01/2009 against the decision in

                 Complaint No.66/1995 by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, vide order dtd.14/11/2005.

4)  Telco V/s. Hardeep Singh, ii (2011) CPJ 236.

5)       Vinod B. Karkare V/s. Tata Locomotive Engineering Ltd., decided by the Hon’ble State Commission by judgement dtd.23/03/1999 in Complaint No.147/2006.

6)       Rameshchandra Kaniyalal Sharogi V/s. M/s. Gadre Motors, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.262/99 vide order dtd.20/05/2005.

 17)      Upon hearing the arguments of both sides, going through the documents filed by both sides and the pleadings the following points arise for our determination and our findings on the same are as under -

Point No.1 :  Whether the Complainant proved that there is/was inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle purchased by her from the Opposite Party No.2 ?

Ans.            :  Not proved.

Pont No.2  :  Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency in services rendered by the Opposite Parties ?

Ans.            :  Not proved.

Pont No.3  :  Whether the Opposite Parties prove that the complaint is beyond the period of limitation ?

Ans.            :   Proved.

Pont No.4   :  What Order ?

Ans.            :  As per final order.

 As to Point No.1 & 2 : While considering the contention of the Complainant regarding manufacturing defects in the vehicle which she purchased she has relied the chart filed with Exh.‘B’ alongwith the Complainant.  In the said chart she has pointed out the problems in the car 1) Clutch problem, Gear problem, Check engine.  2) Removal of clutch plate and installed throttle body remove and re-fit. 3) Gear shift liver boot, Gear hard check-up. 4) Car was suddenly raced, clutch not working, resulted into an accident.  5) Replaced door lock, problem of check engine.  6) Dickey setting done, check engine. 6) Cable harness from engine component, alternator check, all wiring check. 7) Power starring problem. 8) Starting problem, check engine found.  9) Gear lubricant leakage, clutch setting done. 10) Hard clutch setting, starring hard. 11) Clutch setting done. 12) Check engine minor service. 13) Spark plug replace, Glove plug renew check engine tune up, etc.  

In the certificate and affidavit of Mr. Iyer he found the problems – 1) The engine was behaving erratically on operation of accelerator. 2) It was suddenly reviving up without operation accelerator pedal and the reviving up engine not slowing down easily. 3) This malfunctioning was not continuous but it was intermittent and its occurrence and non occurrence could not be assured. 4) Engine warning light glowing inadvertently and erratically.    

It appears that the alleged expert Iyer had according to him inspected the Complainant’s vehicle in the month of May, 2006.  He in his affidavit has specifically mentioned that the defect could be identify only by testing equipment only with the relevant control parameters data for the captioned vehicle. The affidavit of Iyer is dtd.10/06/2011.  In our view as the Complainant has specifically come out with the case that the car which she purchased is/was having inherent manufacturing defects the onus to prove manufacturing defects is on the Complainant.  The Complainant has only relied the chart which she has produced which is referred above as well as the affidavit of Shri. Iyer.  It is also pertinent to note that the Complainant has given an application for the appointment expert for the purpose of inspection of the vehicle in question, however, the Complainant has not pressed such application. As per the provisions of Sec.13 of the Act, it was incumbent upon the Complainant that she should have obtained the appropriate laboratory report such as, ARAI, Pune or the appropriate laboratory in that regard.  We therefore, hold that the affidavit of Iyer relied by the Complainant does not have any evidentially value, as he did not inspect the vehicle with required specific equipments to identify the alleged defects.  Furthermore, the defects which are mentioned in the chart and stated in the certificate of Iyer are not the same. It is also required to be considered that the so-called inspection by/Shri. Iyer was done in May, 2006 and his certificate and affidavit are placed in this complaint on 03/08/2011. Furthermore, the Complainant has not mentioned about the so called inspection by Mr. Iyer in the pleadings of the Complainant, we therefore, hold that on the basis of the said certificate or chart relied by the Complainant it cannot be held that the car in question was having manufacturing defects. 

It is also necessary to be considered that as per the job card/service history placed on record by the Opposite Party.  The car purchased by the Complainant ran till 01/10/2006 of 22053 kms. i.e. till submitted to Opposite Party No.2 for repairs after the accident of the said vehicle.  Thereafter the running of the said car is shown till 16/02/2009 as 7754 kms. when it was submitted for repairs.  Thus, from the entries in the service card it appears that within the period of 38 months the vehicle in question ran upto 29807 kms. (i.e.15/12/2005 to 16/02/2009).  It is also pertinent to note that the Complainant on 27/12/2008 has submitted satisfaction note to the authorized dealer of the Opposite Party No.1- B.U. Bhadari Auto Pvt. Ltd. which is marked at as Exh.‘A’ to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case reported in II (2011) CPJ 236 (NC) Telco V/s. Hardeep Singh (cited Supra) have specifically held that when the onus to prove manufacturing defects which is on the Complainant and if he failed to discharge the same the Opposite Party is only liable to replace the defective parts.  In the said case it is also held that as the Complainant signed satisfactory note he is not entitled to compensation and the complaint itself is not maintainable on that count.  In the present case the similar facts are brought on record by the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties have brought on record that whatever repairs were needed were done by the Opposite Parties, even an amount of Rs.16,000/- as well as, as submitted by the Complainant an amount of Rs.12,000/- were waived by the Opposite Parties even after the warranty period.  In view of the above discussion it appears that the vehicle was free from any manufacturing defects. The Complainant did not raise objection as regards manufacturing defects and signed the satisfaction note on 27/12/08.  It appears that later on by making some correspondence with the Opposite Parties and by mentioning the same in the complaint she tried to magnify the same to make it look like a manufacturing defect. We therefore, hold that such type of tendency is not required to be encouraged. On perusal of job card/service history placed on record by the Opposite Parties, it appears that the repairs carried out to the vehicle of the Complainant are usual repair arising out of the usage of the vehicle.  It is true that the vehicle was sent to the garage for a number of times but it also appears that the said repairs were related to some parts, which do not establish that the vehicle was/is inherently defective. We also hold that as the Complainant has not rendered any evidence of any laboratory dealing with the testing of the vehicle to show that the vehicle supplied to her was inherently defective, the Complainant in our view has failed to prove that she has succeeded to prove that the vehicle purchased by her was suffering from manufacturing defects.

            It is also admitted fact that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant met with an accident on 26/09/2006 and was thereafter brought to the Opposite Parties workshop for accidental repairs.  It is pertinent to note that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty the warranty shall not apply, if the car is subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or an accident. It appears that the problems mentioned in the chart mainly started after the date of accident and therefore, the case made out by the Complainant that the car was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects also cannot be relied upon. 

 18)      While considering the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, in view of the aforesaid discussions as well as on perusal of the service history documents placed on record by the Opposite Parties it appears that whenever the Complainant has produced the vehicle to the garage/workshop of the Opposite Parties it was repaired by them.  The Opposite Parties have also obtained satisfaction notes to that effect from the complaint dtd.27/12/2008.  It also appears that the vehicle of the Complainant was produced to the workshop of the Opposite Parties lastly for repairs on 30/01/2009. The Opposite Parties by their letter dtd.24/04/09 informed to the Complainant all the reports have been checked by their Engineers and after a thorough road trial the car has been certified by their team and cleared for delivery.  From the said letter it also appears that the Opposite Parties were in constant touch with the Complainant there had been a discussion between them and the issue regarding the damage in the engine wring harness was also discussed and it was informed to the Complainant that the same was because by the rat nibbling.  The Opposite Party has also informed that such failure were not due to any manufacturing defects, however, as a special case they have fixed all the outstanding issues free of cost as a gesture  of goodwill and requested to take the delivery of the car on or before 26/04/2009.  We therefore, hold that considering all these facts placed on record by the Opposite Parties it cannot be held that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency of service to the Complainant regarding the car purchased by her.  In view of the above facts we hold that the cases relied by the advocate for the Complainant cited supra in her argument are not applicable to the facts of this case.  The decision in the case relied by the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant reported in 2006 CTJ 157 (CP) (SCDRC) is set aside by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dtd.12/01/2009. We also hold that from the conduct of the Complainant brought on record it appears that she has decided not to take back the vehicle at any given time after it was attended to and allowed it to be left behind in the workshop of the Opposite Parties is nothing but a predetermined mind of litigant.  In view of the facts and circumstances as held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the cases relied by the Advocate for the Opposite Parties it is necessary to be directed to the Opposite Parties if because of the laps of time i.e. from the month of February, 2009 till the decision of this case as the vehicle is not on road and is kept in the workshop of the Opposite Parties at Worli the Opposite Parties to make the vehicle road worthy within four weeks from the receipt of this order and communicate the same to the Complainant and thereafter the Complainant is directed to pickup the vehicle within two weeks or else she would have to pay parking charges to the Opposite Parties as claimed in the letter dtd.26/04/2009 @ Rs.200/- per day.  In the result we answer both the points accordingly.

As to Point No.3 & 4 : The Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant is barred by limitation as the same is filed beyond the warranty period of 18 months which expired on or about 15/06/2007, and as such, the complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided under the Act.  We have perused the date of filing of complaint, it appears that the complaint is filed on 01/06/2009    

            It is undisputed that the Complainant had purchased the car in question in 15/12/2005 and according to her, since beginning she faced problems regarding the said car.  According to her, the said problems were there as there were manufacturing defects in the car.  In such circumstances and in view of period of limitation provided under the Act, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 14/12/2007 as provided under Sec.24A of the Act.  As stated above as the Complainant has filed this complaint for replacement of new brand car after 2 years i.e. on 01/06/2009, it can be held that the same is barred by limitation as provided under the Act.  The Hon’ble National Commission in the case relied by the Advocate for the Opposite Parties Rameshchandra Kaniyalal Shraogi V/s. M/s. Gadre Motors, in Revision Petition No.262 of 1999, decided on 20/05/2005, held that the question of giving effect to warranty after expiry of the warranty period would amount to mean eternal warranty.  Such a situation could neither be presumed nor it would be rational.  It is further held that from that point of view, the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission that the claim of the Complainant after the period of warranty, could not be entertain was justified.  In the present case also the period of warranty was upto 15/06/2007 and the complaint is filed on 01/06/2009, as such, as observed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid case the complaint could not be entertained.  In the result we answer this point in the affirmative and following order is passed –

O R D E R

i.                  Complaint No.173/2009 is not maintainable for replacement of new brand car, compensation and cost of the proceeding against the Opposite Parties.   The same is dismissed with no order as to cost.

ii.             The Opposite Parties are directed to make the vehicle purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.2 on 15/12/2005 road worthy within the period of 4 weeks from the receipt of this order and thereafter communicate the same to the Complainant immediately and the Complainant is directed to pick up the vehicle within 2 weeks or else she would have to pay the parking charges to the Opposite Parties @ Rs.200/- per day from the date of communication.

iii.              As mentioned in para 2 of this order both the Opposite Parties are directed to comply.  

iv.               Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.