It's the duty of a car manufacturer to remove the defects in a vehicle and make it roadworthy, the apex consumer commission has said while asking Maruti Suzuki India Limited to refund the price of one of its models to a customer for failing to rectify the complaint.The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked the automobile major to refund Rs 3,30,710 to Andhra Pradesh resident Dr K S Kishore while dismissing the revision plea of the car company challenging a state commission order."It was the duty of the opposite party (Maruti) to take steps to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to the complainants in a roadworthy condition. From the facts and circumstances on record, it is made out that the OP-2 (Maruti) failed in the task to provide the vehicle in a roadworthy condition to the complainants," a bench, headed by presiding member B C Gupta, said.
It said there was no reason to differ with the state commission's order that the dealer did carry out repairs in the vehicle as per the job cards, but was not able to remove the defects and the entire liability to pay the amount fell on the company only.According to the complaint, Kishore purchased an Alto LX 800 car on January 10, 2003 for Rs 3,30,710 from the dealerMithra Agencies.
It was alleged that the car had intermittent jerky running in second, third and fourth gear positions and giving out a harsh noise from gearbox assembly system.However, the defects in the vehicle could not be removed despite several visits to the workshop of the dealer.The district forum allowed the complaint and asked the company and the dealer to refund the amount along with Rs 25,000 compensation and Rs 2,000 as litigation cost.The dealer denied any deficiency on its part saying there was no defect in the car or its engine and that the noise as alleged by the complainant could be due to defective driving.
The state commission allowed the appeal of the dealer and asked the car manufacturer to refund the amount. It also gave partial respite to Maruti by setting aside the compensation amount of Rs 25,000 but upheld Rs 2,000 litigation cost.The NCDRC rejected the man's revision petition for enhancement of compensation and upheld the state commission's order.