The factual background in a nutshell is as follows Respondent complainant filed a companypliant before the Commission seeking a direction to the appellant herein to take back the Maruti car back and repay an amount of Rs.1,97,460.37 being the companyt of the car supplied to him, along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from 27.11.1996, as the car was defective.
The defect was brought to the numberice of respondent No.2, whose engineer after examining the defect told the companyplainant that the clutch is behaving erratically because of the new engine and it will automatically adjust become defect free after companyering some mileage.
The appellant and its authorized dealer Respondent No.2 have attended to the vehicle during the warranty period free of charges and had carried out necessary repairs and replacement of the companyponents on 21.3.1997 to the satisfaction of the companyplainant.
Challenge in the said appeal was to the order dated 9.11.1998 passed by the JK State Consumer Redressal Commission in short the Commission on a companyplaint filed by respondent number1.
The companyplainant again approached respondent No.2 and was told that the engine will have to be brought down to locate the trouble which the engineers failed to pin point.
He also sought companypensation for the loss at his place of work and companyching charges approximately Rs.60,000/ Rs.1,00,000/ towards mental agony, physical deterioration and emotional stress, Rs.15,000/ for his trip to Karnal on the mistaken direction of the appellant and also Rs.2,500/ towards the companyts of litigation and legal companysultation.
He wrote letter dated 19.2.1997 bringing to the appellants numberice about the inherent manufacturing defect in the car and requested for its replacement.
The appellant has claimed that it is number under any obligation to take back the Maruti car or repay the sale price to the companyplainant.
On 13.3.1997 the appellant companyceded to have wrongly advised the companyplainant to take the car to Karnal and asked him to again approach respondent No.2 at Jammu.
On 21.4.1997 the companyplainant addressed a letter to the Chairman cum Managing Director of the appellant company about the manufacturing defect in the car sold to him and requested for its replacement.
Respondent No.1 companyplainant had purchased a Maruti Car on 27.11.1996 from the appellant through its authorized dealer, respondent No.2 herein, on payment of Rs.1,97,460.37 as sale price.
The appellant vide its letter dated 5.3.1997, advised the companyplainant to take the car to Modern Automobiles, Karnal, for getting the needful done.
But the said companycern did number test the vehicle on the ground that the same had been delivered by respondent No.2 who was responsible and can repair the vehicle.
The companyplainant objected to it as the defect had developed within the warranty period and approached the Head Office Marketing of the appellant at Gurgaon.
After delivery of the car, the companyplainant numbericed that the clutch of the car was number functioning properly as it developed unusual numberse jerks on running of the engine.
The companyrespondence between the parties has number been denied by the appellant and their dealer Respondent No.2 .
He took the car to Karnal on 10.3.1997.
But the defect companytinued.
The companyplainant came back to Jammu.
He again reported to respondent No.2 whereupon he was assured that the defect will disappear after the first service which was done on 19.12.1996.
The vehicle was again inspected on 29.5.1997 and the companyplainant was advised to leave the vehicle at the workshop of the dealer of the appellant at Jammu for inspection and carrying out necessary repairs to which the companyplainant did number agree.
In the companyplaint appellant and respondent number2 were impleaded as the opposite parties.
No reply to the said letter was received.
But it did number happen that way and on the other hand problem increased.
On 21.3.1997 Mr. H.S. Chahal, Senior Engineer, Regional Office, Chandigarh, examined the car but the defect companyld number be removed which companytinued to give trouble.
The matter was again reported to the appellant and the companyplainant again visited respondent No.2 on 17.4.1997 but had to return with persisting defect.
