RAJIV DHIMAN Vs. MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED & ORS
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2006-4-2
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 12,2006

Rajiv Dhiman Appellant
VERSUS
Maruti Udyog Limited And Ors Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

IN INTEREST OF CONSUMER EDUCATION VS. MARUTI UDYOG LTD. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 22.8.2005 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) vide which his complaint was dismissed.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellant purchased Maruti Esteem VXI car having registered No.CH -03K -8301, on 18.11.2002. All the three services were got done from M/s. Modern Automobiles (respondent No. 3) in time and the third service was got done on 30.7.2003 at mileage of 10,377.
(3.)IT was next averred that on 6.8.2003, the appellant approached M/s. Modern automobiles as there was some knocking noise in the engine but on checking, the mechanic told him that there was no fault in the engine and the same was running in good condition. However, on 12.8.2003 again the engine stopped in the way after giving some noise when he was going to market in Chandigarh and whole of the engine oil had leaked. He towed the vehicle and took it to M/s. Modern Automobiles for checking and on checking, he was told that there was some major fault and they had requested the office of the Regional Manager, Maruti Udyog Ltd. to send some engineers to inspect the vehicle at their workshop and on 16.8.2003, he came to know that the engineer from Maruti Udyog Limited had already inspected the vehicle without intimating him and had reported that some rainy water had gone into the engine for which Maruti Udyog Limited was not responsible.
It was further averred that from 6.8.2003 to 12.8.2003 no heavy rains had taken place and there was no question of putting burden on the appellant. He addressed several letters to the Maruti Udyog Limited as well as M/s. Modern Automobiles but of no effect. He also averred that he had paid Rs. 3,495/ - vide receipt No. 53407 dated 14.12.2002 to Modern Automobiles on account of extended warranty for three years or up to 60,000 kilometres, whichever was earlier and the respondents had refused to change the engine and on the other hand forged documents by stating that the vehicle was checked on its workshop and was suspected a case of hydro locking.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.