MARUTI UDYOG LTD. versus SUSHEEL KUMAR GABGOTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 29-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
MARUTI UDYOG LTD. 
A 
v. 
SUSHEEI.;KUMAR GABGOTRA AND ANR. 
MARCH 29, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Consumer Protection: 
J & K Consumer Protection Act, 1988-Section 17-Deficie11cy in 
service-Defect found in car within warranty period-Company and its C 
authorised dealer/ailed to get the defect removed-Direction of High Court 
to Company to get the car replaced-Propriety of-Held, not proper-Warranty 
condition relied upon by Customer provided for repair or replacement of the 
defective part and not replacement of the car itself-Customer permitted to 
get the defective part replaced ji"ee of cost ji-om authorised service centre of D 
Companv-Also awarded consolidated sum of R5. 50. 000 t awards cost incurred 
due to wrong advise by Company and towards inconvenience and cost of 
I it igat ion. 
Respondent No. I had purchased a Maruti Car from Appellant through its 
authorired dealer. He found defect in the car (clutch of the car was not functioning E 
properly) within warranty period. Appellant and its authorised dealer failed to 
get the defect removed. 
Consequently, Respondent No.I filed complaint before the State Consumer 
Redressal Commission seeking a direction to Appellant to take back the car and 
refund the sale price received along with interest He also sought compensation. F 
The Commission held that the Appellant had agreed to replace the vehicle and 
had admitted that there was manufacturing defect in the concerned part Appeal 
thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court which held that the warranty 
condition relied upon by Appellant did not warrant interpretation that only the 
defective part was to be replaced and not the car itself. Therefore, the Appellant G 
was directed to replace the car or repay the amount received by it as sale price 
with interest@ 18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of purchase. 
In appeal to this Court, it was submitted that both the Commission and the 
High Court erred in holding that there was an admission to replace the car and/ 
603 
H 
604 
SCPREME COURT' REPORTS 
12006] 3 S.C.R. 
A or admission of any manufacturing defect and that at the most the Commission 
and the High Court could have asked for replacement of the defective part or to 
pay the cost thereof. 
Allowing the appea~ the Court 
B 
HELD: l. In various documents, more particularly the letter written by 
Respondent no. I to the Appellant, it is clearly stated that Appellant had indicated 
that downing of the engine was necessary to trace the problem. There was no 
agreement to replace the engine system. Additionally, it is not disputed by 
Respondent No.I that when Appellant had asked the vehicle to be brought for the 
C aforesaid purpose the Respondent No.I had not done so. To infer that there was 
any manufacturing defect in the said background is without any foundation. 
1608-A, Bl 
D 
E 
Tata Engineering & locomotive Co. ltd. v. <Jajanan Y. Mandrekar. 119971 
5 sec 507, referred to. 
2. In the case at hand the warranty conditions were specially stated. This is 
not a case of silence of a contract of sale as to warranty. Therefore, the High 
Court was not justified in directing replacement of the vehicle. 1608-D, El 
Corpus Juris Secund111111, Volume 77, page 1198, referred to. 
3. But on the peculiar facts of the case relief to the Respondent no.I has to 
be moulded. Accordingly it is directed as follows:-
(I) On Respondent no. I taking the vehicle in question to the authorized 
service centre of the Appellant at Jam mu within three weeks, the defective part 
F that is clutches assembly shall be replaced. Respondent No. I shall not be required 
to pay any charge for the replacement. 
(2) In addition, Respondent no. I shall be entitled to receive a consolidated 
sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the Appellant for cost of 
travel to Karna! which admittedly was wrongly advised by the Appellant, for the 
G inconvenience caused to Respondent no. I on account of the acts of the Appellant 
and Respondent no.2 and the cost of litigation. 1608-E-HI 
H 
Jose Phillip Mumpi/lil v. Premier Automobiles Ltd., 120041 2 SCC 278, 
relied on. 
.
.....
..... 
. .-
MAR UT! UDYOG LTD. r.SUSHEEL KUMAR GABGOTRA [PASA YAT • .1 ] 
605 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3734/2000. 
A 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 3.12.1999 of the High Court 
of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in CIMA No. 250/1998. 
Raju Ramachandran and Pramod Dayal for the Appellant. 
T.S. Doabia, Manpreet Sing

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.