AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE aforesaid appeals arise from the order dated 22. 4. 2003 whereby both the appellants have been directed to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 25,000 as compensation to be shared by both. Appellant Maruti Udyog is the manufacturer of the vehicle Maruti van purchased by respondent. Appellant Competent Automobiles is a dealer. Both are aggrieved of the order. Maruti Udyog Ltd. is aggrieved of the order that when there was no manufacturing defect in the engine it had been directed to pay the compensation whereas the appellant-Competent Automobiles is aggrieved of the order that there was no deficiency while servicing the vehicle as whenever it was brought defects were rectified. Moreover, the defect was pointed out for the first time after the expiry of the warranty period.
ADMITTEDLY the vehicle was serviced on 4th July, 2001. Engine oil was replaced by putting 3 litres of oil. The vehicle had run 50,330 kms. by 21st January, 2001. When it was taken to the appellant Competent Motors it had covered 50,864 kms. i. e. , after service and replacement of the engine oil it had only run 534 kms. but no engine oil was found when the vehicle was opened. Both the appellants could not give any explanation as to how 3 ltrs. engine oil could be consumed when the vehicle had run only 534 kms. The respondent was told that they would be able to tell him the reasons of engine failure only after opening it. The engine was opened by the appellant Competent Auto after charging Rs. 9,015 from the respondent. After opening the engine it was found that there is no oil in the engine and, therefore, it needs replacement. The engine was opened by the engineers of the appellants and they gave in writing that there was no leakage of engine oil from the engine.
On behalf of Maruti Udyog it is contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the engine and engine suffered the damage due to shortage of engine oil and due to the ignorance of the respondent that he should have changed the engine oil before taking the vehicle outstation.
ON behalf of the appellant-Competent Motors it is contended that on 14th July, 2004 only general inspection was done whereas the respondent complained on 25th July, 2001 that after paying for 3 ltrs. of engine oil the same was consumed by hardly running for 534 kms. In view of the reports of the engineers who inspected the vehicle that there was no leakage in the engine oil and still the engine oil which was put on 4th July, 2001 was consumed by running only 534 kms. the only inference that can be drawn is that there was some manufacturing defect in the engine or there was some deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Competent Automobiles. Otherwise where was the need for opening the engine.
FOREGOING reasons persuade us to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits and substance with cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the respondent in equal share by the appellants. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this letter. The bank guarantee/fdr, if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.