Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ordered Maruti Suzuki India Limited to refund ₹7 lakh to a car buyer. The court upheld a 2015 Consumer Commission decision. The customer had repeatedly complained of manufacturing defects in the car immediately after purchasing it, but the company and dealer failed to address them.
A division bench of Justices Sanjiv Kumar and Sanjay Parihar held that both the company and dealer were jointly responsible for failing to address the defect within the warranty period. Therefore, Maruti Suzuki’s appeal was dismissed. Mohammad Ashraf Khan, who purchased the car in 2007, reported experiencing excessive vibrations in the gears from the outset. The car remained with the dealer since 2009.
What’s the Case:
The petitioner, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, challenged the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order directing either a refund of ₹7 lakh to Mohammed Ashraf Khan, the respondent, or the car be replaced.
Senior counsel RA Jan, representing Maruti Suzuki, argued that the Commission passed the order without any material facts and without expert evidence of a manufacturing defect. The company also said it was involved late and was not given a fair opportunity to present evidence.
What the Court Said:
Justice Parihar noted that the car’s owner had repeatedly taken the car for repairs during the warranty period, yet despite inspections and assurances, the defect persisted. In its 7-page judgment, the court found that the inspection report by the Principal of the Government Polytechnic College had indeed shown that the car was vibrating strangely.
Justice Parihar wrote, “The Commission has clearly found that the defect was discovered immediately after purchase, and that the complainant repeatedly contacted the dealer between 2007 and 2009 to have it rectified, but the problem persisted.” He further stated that if a defect occurs during the warranty period, “both the dealer and the manufacturer will be jointly and severally responsible for the deficiency in service.”
Maruti’s Argument Rejected:
Rejecting the company’s complaint of lack of opportunity before the Commission, the bench said, “Once the dealer has joined and appeared through counsel, the appellant cannot claim lack of opportunity. After submitting its engineer’s report, it was the appellant’s responsibility to prove it.”
The Court also rejected Maruti Suzuki’s argument that the Commission had no authority to involve the manufacturer in the case. The bench stated, “Excluding the manufacturer would render the warranty clause meaningless.” It stated that, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, the firm is best positioned to “diagnose and rectify the defects.”
Car owner’s lawyer’s argument:
Raising the buyer’s long struggle, who had to abandon his newly purchased car more than a decade after first reporting it to the dealer, Khan’s lawyer maintained throughout that the manufacturer had been properly informed and had decided not to contest the polytechnic’s technical findings.
The bench concluded that the Consumer Commission’s 2015 order was based on a “correct understanding of the evidence.” Justice Parihar wrote, “We therefore find no reason to differ from the Commission’s viewpoint in that order and find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by it.”
The appeal was dismissed.
What the Consumer Commission ordered:
On January 5, 2015, the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, directed the respondent (Maruti Suzuki) to “pay the complainant (Khan) a sum of ₹7 lakh and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs and retain the vehicle. Or, in its place, replace the vehicle with a new one within six weeks.”
