ISSAC MATHEW Vs. MARUTI UDYOG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first opposite party is the Maruti Udyog Ltd. who are the manufacturer of Maruti cars and the second opposite party is the Popular Vehicles and Services who are their dealers at Ernakulam. The complainant purchased a Maruti 800-A/c Car under the NRE Scheme for Rs.1,28,519.63 paying the amount in foreign exchange. The car was despatched from Delhi to the 2nd opposite party at Ernakulam and the complainant was advised to take delivery on 16.6.1990 at 11 A. M. The complainant alleges that though he went to the 2nd opposite party's premises on time for this purpose, he was made to wait till 3 p. m. and was not allowed to see the car inspite of repeated requests. On account of this long wait he only checked the outside of the body for dents or damages during transportation. Also considering the reputation of the manufactures he had no reason to suspect any major mechanical defects or replacement of original parts. He therefore took delivery of the car.

(2.) But the next morning (17.6.1990) he noticed that the car was fitted with a used driver seat and that the balancing weights were missing. Various other defects of a serious nature were also noticed. (A list of 12 defects is given in the complaint but as they have to be mentioned in the context of the Commission report prepared in the course of the enquiry, they are not set out here ).

(3.) On 18.6.1990 the complainant took the car to the 2nd opposite party and showed it to the Sales Manager. The second opposite party pleaded helplessness and suggested that the damage might have occurred in the factory in Delhi itself. Since this was on 18.6.1990 i. e. after taking delivery of the car, all the defects latent and apparent could not be stated in the complaint and suggestion book.