Email
Print
ShareMumbai: Consumers often get their appliances repaired when they go out of order. Very often, they are confused as they don't know if the mechanic changed the part for which the bill has been given or has it been refurbished or altered in some way.
This question haunted Nangram Bairwa and when he did not get a satisfactory answer he moved the consumer courts. The matter was decided by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Maruti Udyog Ltd vs. Nangram Bairwa and another.
Bairwa purchased a Maruti 800 car from the company on October 3, 1997. Soon after purchase, Bairwa noticed several defects and brought the car for repair to the authorized service agent several times. Finally, on August 10, 1998, the workshop agreed to change several parts including the engine kit. When Bairwa got the car back, he asked for extension of warranty on the new engine for one year. He also claimed that he had undergone tremendous hardship because of the defective engine of the car and demanded Rs84,000 as compensation from the company.
When the company refused to settle the dispute, it landed in the District Consumer Dispute Forum, which ordered that the car be examined by an automobile engineer. The report of the engineer said that the engine was not replaced at all. The district forum ordered Maruti Udyog either to change the engine or pay the consumer, with Rs500 as costs. The company went in appeal to the state commission which was dismissed.
Maruti Udyog then took the matter to the national commission. There, the company put up the plea, that due to 'excise problems' the company could not place a new engine in the car, though all other repairs were carried out and the engine re-fitted.
The commission asked Maruti Ltd to produce the gatepass and excise duty certificate of the new engine, which it couldn'. Holding this to be a case of deficiency in service by the company, since it was represented to the consumer that the engine had been changed, the Commission imposed a further cost of Rs5,000 on the company for prolonging the litigation for 10 years.
