MARUTI UDYOG LTD. versus SUSHEEL KUMAR GABGOTRA AND ANR.

MARUTI UDYOG LTD. versus SUSHEEL KUMAR GABGOTRA AND ANR.

Under the express warranty conditions, the obligation is to repair or replace defective parts at the company's discretion, not to replace the entire vehicle. The High Court was not justified in directing replacement of the car; only the defective clutch assembly should be replaced free of cost.

Parties
Appellant: Maruti Udyog Ltd.; Respondent No.1: Susheel Kumar Gabgotra; Respondent No.2: Modern Automobiles
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed partially
Legal Topics
Deficiency in Service, Warranty, Compensation, Replacement of Defective Parts
Consumer Protection Deficiency in Service Warranty Compensation Replacement of Defective Parts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maruti Udyog Ltd.

Appellant

Susheel Kumar Gabgotra

Respondent No.1

Modern Automobiles

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warranty conditions require replacement of the whole vehicle or only defective parts
  2. 2 Whether there was an admission of manufacturing defect justifying replacement of the vehicle

Ratio Decidendi

Under the express warranty conditions, the obligation is to repair or replace defective parts at the company's discretion, not to replace the entire vehicle. The High Court was not justified in directing replacement of the car; only the defective clutch assembly should be replaced free of cost.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed partially

Orders

  • Respondent no.1 to take the vehicle to the authorized service centre at Jammu within three weeks; defective clutch assembly to be replaced, free of charge.
  • Respondent no.1 entitled to receive a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000 from appellant for cost of travel, inconvenience, and litigation.