Srinagar, Nov 28: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a 2015 order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing Maruti Suzuki India Limited to refund ₹7 lakh to a car buyer who reported persistent defects in his vehicle soon after purchasing it.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed an appeal filed by Maruti Suzuki, holding that both the manufacturer and its dealer were “jointly and severally liable” for failing to rectify a manufacturing defect during the warranty period.
The appeal challenged the Commission’s directive issued in January 2015, which ordered the company to either refund ₹7,00,000 to the complainant, Mohammad Ashraf Khan, or replace the SX4 sedan he had purchased in 2007. Khan had complained that the car developed severe vibrations in the first and reverse gears from the very beginning. The vehicle eventually remained with the dealer from 2009 onwards.
Maruti Suzuki, represented by senior counsel R.A. Jan, argued that the Commission had passed the order without “any factual foundation” and without expert evidence to prove a manufacturing defect. The company further claimed that it had been added as a party at a late stage and was denied a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence.
However, writing for the bench, Justice Parihar observed that Khan had repeatedly presented the vehicle for repairs throughout the warranty period, yet the defect remained unresolved despite inspections and assurances. The court placed considerable reliance on the inspection report prepared by the Principal of Government Polytechnic College, which confirmed abnormal vibrations in the vehicle.
“The Commission has recorded a categorical finding that the defect was noticed immediately after purchase, and that the complainant repeatedly approached the dealer between 2007 and 2009 for rectification, but the problem persisted,” Justice Parihar noted. He added that once a defect appears within the warranty period, “both dealer and manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.”
Addressing Maruti Suzuki’s contention of inadequate opportunity before the Commission, the bench said: “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.”
The court also rejected the argument that the manufacturer could not be added midway through the case. Excluding the manufacturer, it held, “would render the warranty clause meaningless,” noting that the producer is best equipped to diagnose and rectify defects.
Khan’s counsel argued that the buyer’s vehicle had remained with the dealer for over a decade after the first complaint, and that Maruti Suzuki had chosen not to counter the Polytechnic’s expert findings. The High Court agreed, observing that Maruti’s own engineer’s report failed to rebut the credible technical evidence on record.
Concluding that the Commission’s order was based on a “sound appreciation of evidence,” the division bench ruled that there was “no infirmity or illegality” in the findings and upheld the 2015 directive.
With the appeal dismissed, the court ordered that statutory deposits made by the company during litigation be remitted to the consumer commission, ensuring the long-pending compensation due to Khan. (KDC)
