Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs Mohammad Ashraf Khan And

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR MA No. 114/2015 Reserved on : 19.11.2025 Pronounced on : 27 .11.2025 Uploaded on 27.11.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. R. A. Jan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Wahid Lone, Advocate and Ms. Safa Aziz, Advocate. Vs.

MOHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN AND ...Respondent(s) OTHERS.

Through: Mr. M. A. Dar, Advocate with Mr. Javaid Ahmad, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

Sanjay Parihar (J): 1. By this miscellaneous appeal, the appellants assail the judgment/order dated

05.01.2015 passed by the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Srinagar (hereinafter "the Commission") in Complaint No.

57/2009. By the impugned order, the Commission directed the respondents

therein to refund a sum of ₹7,00,000/- to the complainant along with ₹5,000/-

as litigation costs, while retaining the vehicle in question; or, in the

alternative, to replace the said vehicle with a new one within six weeks.

2. The impugned judgment is challenged on the ground that it has been passed

in complete disregard of the settled legal principles governing the

adjudication of complaints alleging manufacturing defects. It is submitted

that no expert opinion from any accredited or competent technical laboratory

was obtained to substantiate the alleged defect. The Commission, it is urged,

MA No.114/2015 Page 1 of 7 also failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of the warranty and the

period during which it was operative. Furthermore, the Commission had no

legal basis to discard the report of the Deputy Director or the certificate

issued by the Area Service Manager of the appellant company, both of which

categorically affirmed that the vehicle was in proper working condition. Once

the vehicle had been inspected and found defect-free, the Commission

committed a manifest error in ignoring such material evidence.

3. It is further submitted that the Commission overlooked the legal framework

governing such disputes and proceeded to order the replacement of the

vehicle without any factual foundation or legal justification. The award, it is

argued, was passed although the manufacturer had not originally been

arrayed as a party to the complaint. The Commission, though not a civil

court, impleaded the manufacturer suo motu at a later stage, which, according

to the appellants, was without jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection

Act. On this ground alone, the findings recorded against the appellant are

said to be vitiated.

4. Briefly stated, respondent No. 1 (the complainant) purchased an SX-4 motor

car manufactured by the appellant from its authorised dealer on 14.05.2007

for a consideration of ₹7,00,736/-. After delivery, the complainant allegedly

noticed persistent vibration in the first and reverse gears, which the dealer is

said to have failed to rectify despite repeated inspections and mechanical

checks.

5. In the original complaint, only the authorised dealer was arrayed as a

respondent. However, by order dated 06.01.2014, the Commission observed

that the report furnished by the State Motor Garages regarding the condition

of the vehicle appeared ambiguous. Although the report at one stage

suggested a manufacturing defect, it subsequently appeared to dilute or

MA No.114/2015 Page 2 of 7 retract that observation, rendering the opinion cryptic and unreliable. The

Commission further recorded that the vehicle had continued to remain with

the dealer after the complainant reported the alleged defect. In view of the

ambiguity, the Commission directed that Maruti Udyog Limited (the

appellant herein) be impleaded as a respondent, on the premise that if the

vehicle were ultimately found to suffer from a manufacturing defect, the

manufacturer must be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The Commission

also directed the dealer to inform the manufacturer so that an engineer could

be deputed for inspection.

6. It is significant that the complaint was instituted while the vehicle was still

within the warranty period. The vehicle, purchased in 2007, is alleged to have

exhibited persistent vibration until 2009, after which it remained in the

custody of the dealer. Although the appellant was allowed to contest the

complaint and examine the vehicle, it chose instead to submit a report dated

04.06.2014 from its engineer, stating that the vehicle was roadworthy and

that any manufacturing defect had been rectified. In contrast, the report of the

Principal, Government Polytechnic College, who conducted a physical

inspection, confirmed that the vehicle vibrated in the first and reverse gears,

thereby indicating a manufacturing defect.

7. The Commission also noted that both the dealer and the manufacturer were

represented through the same counsel. Upon weighing the evidence, the

Commission held that although the dealer and manufacturer relied on the

reports of the Director, State Motor Garages and the Area Sales Manager to

demonstrate roadworthiness, this material was contradicted by the evidence

adduced by the complainant. The record established that the vehicle had been

repeatedly taken to the workshop for repairs from the very outset, yet the

vibration persisted, demonstrating a clear manufacturing defect. Since 2009,

MA No.114/2015 Page 3 of 7 the vehicle had remained with the dealer without any effective effort to repair

or replace it.

8. The Commission accordingly held the complainant entitled to relief and

directed both the dealer and the manufacturer to refund ₹7,00,000/- along

with ₹5,000/- towards litigation expenses, while retaining possession of the

vehicle. In the alternative, it directed replacement of the vehicle with a new

one, in which event the complainant would pay only the difference, if any,

between the cost of the new vehicle and the original price of ₹7.05 lakhs.

9. We have perused the record of the Commission and heard learned counsel for

both sides. The appellant-manufacturer has advanced a two-fold submission:

first, that there was no admissible or cogent material before the Commission

to sustain a finding of manufacturing defect, especially in light of three

reports certifying the vehicle as roadworthy; and second, that the

Commission proceeded to pass the impugned order without formally

impleading the manufacturer at the initial stage or allowing it to lead

evidence, thereby causing prejudice.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant supported the

impugned order, contending that the record clearly demonstrates that the

manufacturer had been afforded a hearing, and that the counsel for the dealer

also represented the manufacturer. It was further argued that despite adequate

opportunity after being impleaded, the manufacturer elected not to contest the

matter. In view of the Commission's findings that the vehicle suffered from a

manufacturing defect, manifested through persistent vibration in the first and

reverse gears, which neither the dealer nor the manufacturer could rectify

during the warranty period, both were jointly and severally liable.

11. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra, AIR 2006 SC 1586, the

Supreme Court held that if a defect is detected during the warranty period,

MA No.114/2015 Page 4 of 7 the manufacturer is obliged to repair or replace the defective component, the

law recognising an implied warranty that the vehicle is reasonably fit for its

intended purpose. Although the Court did not direct replacement of the entire

vehicle in that case, it nevertheless ordered replacement of the defective part

and awarded compensation. Again, in (2006) 3 SCC 721, the Apex Court

held that once deficiencies begin to surface, it is the duty of the supplier to

address them promptly; and if such deficiencies persist during the warranty

period, the supplier is liable for deficiency in service. Under Article 10 of the

Warranty and Free Services clause in the dealership agreement, the appellant-

manufacturer is contractually obliged to reimburse the dealer for repairs or

replacement of defective parts during the warranty period.

12. The Commission has recorded a categorical finding that the defect was

noticed immediately after purchase and that between 2007 and 2009 the

complainant repeatedly approached the dealer for rectification, but the

problem persisted. The appellant has not specifically disputed these findings;

its principal contention is that the defects were not of such magnitude as to

warrant full replacement or attract liability.

13. The dealer acts on behalf of the manufacturer for maintenance and service. It

is not the appellant's case that the defect surfaced after expiry of the

warranty. Once the defect is noticed within the warranty period, both dealer

and manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.

14. In AIR 2011 SC 523, the consumer had complained of persistent engine

defects from the day of purchase. Although the vehicle had run 800 km, it

had largely remained with the dealer for repairs. The Supreme Court upheld

the award and held that if an independent expert confirmed inherent

manufacturing defects, the consumer was entitled to a refund of the price and

life tax along with interest. Both dealer and manufacturer were held liable.

MA No.114/2015 Page 5 of 7

15. In the present case, the dealer contested the matter throughout. Once the

Commission found prima facie evidence of a manufacturing defect, it

impleaded the manufacturer. After receiving the report of the Government

Polytechnic College, which confirmed vibration in the first and reverse gear,

the Commission duly notified the appellant. Instead of addressing the

findings of the said report, the appellant submitted a contrary report from its

own officer without dealing with the earlier expert findings, resulting in the

matter being referred to the State Motor Garages.

16. The Commission observed that there was no explanation for the dealer's

failure to return the vehicle to the complainant and no material showing that

the dealer sought guidance from the manufacturer. Once impleaded and

represented through the same counsel as the dealer, the appellant cannot

claim lack of opportunity. Having submitted its own engineer's report, the

appellant was under an obligation to substantiate it.

17. The contention that the Commission ignored the report of the State Motor

Garages is untenable. The Commission found that the report of the

Government Polytechnic, Srinagar, remained unrebutted. The complainant

had specifically challenged the report of the Deputy Director, State Motor

Garages, pointing out its shortcomings, including that it was not prepared by

a technical team, unlike the Polytechnic report.

18. The argument that the Commission lacked authority to implead the

manufacturer is also without merit. Once liability for deficiency in service is

joint, the dealership relationship and warranty terms bind both. To exclude

the manufacturer would render the warranty clause meaningless. As the

producer of the vehicle, the manufacturer is best placed to diagnose and

rectify defects.

19. In this background, the Commission cannot be said to have exceeded its

MA No.114/2015 Page 6 of 7 jurisdiction. Having been notified and having inspected the vehicle through

its engineer, the appellant ought to have taken steps to repair the vehicle or

lead rebuttal evidence. Having chosen not to do so, it cannot allege denial of

opportunity. The prolonged retention of the vehicle by the dealer after 2009,

without justification, further prejudiced the complainant. Given the warranty

policy, the manufacturer cannot evade liability by pleading ignorance or lack

of opportunity.

20. We accordingly find no reason to differ with the view taken by the

Commission in the impugned order and find no infirmity or illegality in the

order passed by it. The findings are based on a sound appreciation of

evidence and settled principles of consumer law. The manufacturer and the

dealer failed to rectify the defect during the warranty period and are,

therefore, liable.

21. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

The appellant and the respondent-dealer are jointly and severally liable to

satisfy the award of the commission. Disposed of as such, a copy of the order

shall be notified to the commission and in case there is any statutory deposit

of award or otherwise same shall be remitted back to the commission

accordingly.

(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge Srinagar 27.11.2025 "Shaista-PS"

Whether the Judgment is Reportable? Yes

Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes

Shaista Rashid Shah I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

27.11.2025 15:42 MA No.114/2015 Page 7 of 7