Impleadment of Manufacturer and Joint Liability for Warranty-Period Defects under Consumer Law: Commentary on Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Mohammad Ashraf Khan & Ors

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in MA No. 114/2015, Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Mohammad Ashraf Khan & Others, decided on 27 November 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Sanjay Parihar, J. and Sanjeev Kumar, J.

The decision arises from a consumer dispute concerning an alleged manufacturing defect in a Maruti SX-4 car. The complainant sought redress before the Jammu & Kashmir Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“the Commission”) on account of persistent vibrations in first and reverse gears, which the authorised dealer allegedly failed to rectify despite repeated attempts during the warranty period.

The Commission allowed the complaint, directing refund of almost the entire purchase price with litigation costs, while permitting the dealer and manufacturer to retain the vehicle; in the alternative, it ordered replacement of the vehicle with a new one. The manufacturer (Maruti Suzuki India Limited) challenged this order before the High Court.

The appeal raised two principal questions:

Whether the Commission could legitimately find a manufacturing defect without a technical report from an “accredited” or “competent” laboratory, and despite certain reports declaring the vehicle roadworthy; and
Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to implead the manufacturer suo motu at a later stage (when the original complaint was only against the dealer), and whether such impleadment and the subsequent order caused prejudice to the manufacturer.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commission’s order and affirming the joint and several liability of the dealer and manufacturer. In doing so, the Court clarified important aspects of consumer law relating to:

the evidentiary standard for proving a manufacturing defect in consumer fora;
the scope of consumer fora’s powers to implead manufacturers in order to grant effective relief;
the joint and several liability of dealer and manufacturer where defects surface during the warranty period; and
the circumstances in which refund or replacement of the entire vehicle (not just parts) can be ordered.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 Purchase and Emergence of Defects

On 14.05.2007, the complainant (Mohammad Ashraf Khan) purchased a Maruti SX-4 car for ₹7,00,736/- from the authorised dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Limited.
Immediately after delivery, the complainant allegedly noticed persistent vibration in the first and reverse gears.
He repeatedly took the vehicle back to the authorised dealer for inspection and repair. Despite repeated mechanical checks and attempts at rectification, the vibrations allegedly continued.

The complaint was filed before the Commission during the currency of the warranty period, a fact which later became crucial in determining the liability of both the dealer and the manufacturer.

2.2 Proceedings Before the Consumer Commission

Initially, the complainant arrayed only the authorised dealer as respondent in Complaint No. 57/2009. The manufacturer was not impleaded at the outset.

During the proceedings:

A report was obtained from the State Motor Garages. At one stage, this report hinted at a possible manufacturing defect but later appeared to dilute or retract that observation, rendering it ambiguous and cryptic.
The Commission noted that the car remained in the custody of the dealer from 2009 onwards, ostensibly for repair, yet no effective remedy was provided to the complainant.

2.3 Suo Motu Impleadment of the Manufacturer

By order dated 06.01.2014, upon finding the State Motor Garages’ report unsatisfactory, the Commission:

observed that the report was ambiguous and unreliable, especially regarding the nature of the alleged manufacturing defect; and
held that if there was indeed a manufacturing defect, it would be necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the manufacturer.

Accordingly, the Commission:

impleaded Maruti Suzuki India Limited (referred to in the judgment as “Maruti Udyog Ltd.” in earlier precedents) as a respondent, and
directed the dealer to inform the manufacturer so that an engineer from the company could inspect the vehicle.

Although the Consumer Commission is “not a civil court” in the technical sense, it exercised its procedural powers and duty to do complete justice by adding the manufacturer as a necessary party. This later became one of the core points of challenge in the High Court.

2.4 Contradictory Expert Reports

After impleadment, the following technical materials were before the Commission:

Report of the Principal, Government Polytechnic College – This independent public technical institution physically examined the vehicle and confirmed that the car vibrated in first and reverse gears, indicative of a manufacturing defect. This report was detailed and explained the nature of the problem.
Report of the Deputy Director, State Motor Garages – This report was internally inconsistent; while at one point it appeared to suggest a defect, at another point it diluted that conclusion. It was also criticised for not being prepared by a technical team, unlike the Polytechnic’s report.
Report from the manufacturer’s own engineer, dated 04.06.2014 – The manufacturer submitted an internal report asserting that the car was roadworthy and that any manufacturing defect, if it had existed, had been rectified.

On this evidentiary basis, the Commission gave significantly greater weight to the Government Polytechnic’s expert report and found the State Motor Garages’ report “ambiguous”, while treating the manufacturer’s own engineer’s report as a self-serving document that did not effectively rebut the independent expert evidence.

2.5 Findings and Relief Granted by the Commission

The Commission, after weighing the materials, found that:

The vehicle had exhibited persistent vibration from the time of purchase in 2007 until 2009.
Despite repeated visits to the workshop during the warranty period, the defect continued.
The car had been kept with the dealer since 2009 without any proper explanation or effective remedial action.
This demonstrated a clear manufacturing defect and a serious deficiency in service.

On that basis, the Commission ordered:

Refund of ₹7,00,000/- to the complainant, along with ₹5,000/- as litigation costs, while permitting the dealer/manufacturer to retain the vehicle;
Alternatively, replacement of the defective vehicle with a new vehicle, in which case the complainant would pay only the difference between the cost of the new vehicle and the original price of ₹7.05 lakhs, if any.

Both the authorised dealer and the manufacturer were held jointly and severally liable.

2.6 Appeal by the Manufacturer

The manufacturer challenged the Commission’s order before the High Court on the following principal grounds:

Absence of proper expert opinion: It alleged that the Commission had decided the case in disregard of the legal requirement to rely on a report from an accredited or competent technical laboratory, and had erroneously preferred the Polytechnic report over the State Motor Garages and its own Area Service Manager’s certificate, which had declared the car defect-free.
Improper impleadment and prejudice: It argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to implead the manufacturer suo motu, especially when it was not a civil court; and that the late impleadment, without a full opportunity to lead evidence, rendered the findings against the manufacturer invalid.

The complainant resisted the appeal, maintaining that the manufacturer had been afforded a full opportunity of hearing, was represented by the same counsel as the dealer, and had in fact chosen its litigation strategy (including submitting its own report) but failed to effectively rebut the independent expert evidence or to repair/replace the vehicle during the warranty period.

3. Summary of the High Court’s Judgment

The High Court dismissed the manufacturer’s appeal and affirmed the Commission’s order in toto. Its principal findings can be summarised as follows:

Existence of manufacturing defect established: The report of the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, which confirmed persistent vibration in the first and reverse gears, remained effectively unrebutted. The State Motor Garages’ report was ambiguous and not prepared by a technical team. The manufacturer’s own report did not seriously engage with the independent expert’s findings.
Defect arose and persisted within the warranty period: The defect was noticed soon after purchase and the complainant repeatedly approached the dealer between 2007 and 2009. This fact was not specifically disputed by the manufacturer. The car remained with the dealer for years, which reinforced the finding of continuing defect and failure of service.
Joint and several liability of dealer and manufacturer: Since the vehicle’s defect manifested during the warranty period, and the dealer acts on behalf of the manufacturer for maintenance and service, both are jointly and severally liable. The manufacturer’s responsibility flows from implied warranties recognised in law and from the dealership agreement (particularly Article 10 of the Warranty and Free Services clause).
Impleadment of manufacturer by the Commission upheld: Consumer fora have the power, and indeed the duty, to implead manufacturers where necessary to grant effective and complete relief. To exclude the manufacturer would render warranty clauses meaningless. The Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction in adding the manufacturer as a party at a later stage.
No denial of opportunity or prejudice: After being impleaded, the manufacturer was represented by counsel, had notice of the proceedings, inspected the vehicle through its engineer, and submitted its own report. It chose not to lead further evidence or actively counter the Polytechnic report. Hence, it cannot now claim lack of opportunity or procedural unfairness.
Relief granted by Commission is legal and proper: The direction to refund the price or, in the alternative, to replace the vehicle, is consistent with the powers of consumer fora and with Supreme Court precedents which recognise the right to refund or replacement where a manufacturing defect persists despite repeated repair attempts during the warranty period.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the Commission’s order was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and well-settled principles of consumer law, and that there was no infirmity or illegality warranting appellate interference.

4. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court’s analysis is anchored in three key Supreme Court decisions, which collectively articulate the law on warranty-period defects, manufacturing defects, and liability of manufacturers and dealers.

4.1 Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra, AIR 2006 SC 1586

The High Court relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in this case, which involved defects discovered in a vehicle during the warranty period. The Supreme Court held:

If a defect is detected during the warranty period, the manufacturer is obliged to repair or replace the defective component.
The law recognises an implied warranty that the vehicle supplied is reasonably fit for its intended purpose.
Even where full replacement of the vehicle is not ordered, the Court may direct replacement of the defective part and award compensation for consequential loss.

The High Court in the present case adopts these principles to underline that:

Detection of a defect within the warranty period triggers the manufacturer’s legal obligation to remedy it, and
An implied warranty of fitness is a component of the consumer’s rights, beyond the four corners of the written warranty booklet.

Notably, the High Court cites this precedent to support the proposition that once the defect is acknowledged or established within warranty, the manufacturer cannot escape liability merely on the ground that the defect is confined to a particular component or is allegedly “not serious”.

4.2 Supreme Court decision reported at (2006) 3 SCC 721

Although the judgment does not give the case name, it summarises the ratio of the Supreme Court decision reported at (2006) 3 SCC 721 as follows:

Once deficiencies begin to surface in a product or service, particularly within the warranty period, it is the duty of the supplier to address them promptly.
If such deficiencies persist during the warranty period despite attempts at rectification, the supplier is liable for deficiency in service.

The High Court imports this principle to the present facts. The car’s vibration problem manifested almost immediately after purchase and persisted until at least 2009, despite multiple workshop visits. The car then remained with the dealer for years without effective repair or replacement.

Therefore, consistent with this precedent, the High Court treats the continuing defect as an ongoing deficiency in service, rather than a one-off issue. The repeated failure to rectify the defect, despite notice and opportunity during the warranty period, is sufficient to attract liability.

4.3 Supreme Court decision reported at AIR 2011 SC 523

Again, without naming the case, the High Court cites the Supreme Court decision reported at AIR 2011 SC 523, where:

The consumer complained of persistent engine defects from the day of purchase.
Although the vehicle had run about 800 km, it had largely remained with the dealer for repairs.
An independent expert confirmed the presence of inherent manufacturing defects.
The Supreme Court upheld the award directing refund of the price and life tax with interest, and held both the dealer and the manufacturer jointly liable.

The High Court sees the present case as factually analogous:

Defects appeared from the very beginning.
The vehicle effectively remained with the dealer for long periods in an attempt to repair it.
An independent public technical institution (Government Polytechnic College) confirmed the defect.
The consumer sought substantive, not merely cosmetic, relief.

Thus, AIR 2011 SC 523 is used to justify:

the Commission’s reliance on an independent technical report over more ambiguous or self-serving reports; and
the grant of refund/replacement and the imposition of joint and several liability on both dealer and manufacturer.

5. Legal Reasoning and Doctrinal Analysis

5.1 Determination of Manufacturing Defect

The central factual controversy was whether the car’s persistent vibration in first and reverse gears amounted to a manufacturing defect. The High Court endorsed the Commission’s approach on three main grounds:

Continuity and early manifestation of the defect: The defect was noticed immediately after purchase (2007) and continued until at least 2009, despite repeated attempts at rectification.
Retaining of vehicle by dealer since 2009: The vehicle remained in the dealer’s custody from 2009 onwards without any satisfactory explanation or effective solution. This pattern is inconsistent with a minor or intermittent problem and supports the inference of a deeper defect.
Independent expert confirmation: The Government Polytechnic College’s report, after physical inspection, specifically confirmed the vibration issue in first and reverse gears and treated it as indicative of a manufacturing defect. This report remained unrebutted in any meaningful way.

In contrast, the reports favouring the manufacturer were weak:

The Deputy Director, State Motor Garages produced an ambiguous and internally inconsistent report, without the involvement of a technical team. It initially suggested a defect but later appeared to retreat from that position.
The manufacturer’s engineer’s report was essentially a unilateral self-certification, claiming that the vehicle was roadworthy and any defect had been rectified. Crucially, it did not convincingly address the specific findings of the Polytechnic’s earlier independent report.

Given this evidentiary balance, the High Court found no fault with the Commission in preferring the independent, detailed, and technically grounded report of the Polytechnic over:

an ambiguous governmental workshop report, and
a self-serving internal report from the manufacturer.

5.2 Role and Weight of Expert Evidence in Consumer Disputes

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the governing law at the relevant time), consumer fora are empowered to:

obtain the opinion of an “appropriate laboratory” where a defect cannot be determined without proper analysis or test (Section 13(1)(c));
follow a summary procedure and are not bound by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act.

The manufacturer had argued that the Commission should have obtained a report from an “accredited or competent technical laboratory” and that the Polytechnic’s report did not satisfy this requirement. The High Court implicitly rejects this narrow reading and clarifies the approach:

The requirement is not confined to laboratories with formal “accreditation” as under certain specialised statutes; what is necessary is that the institution or expert be technically competent and impartial.
A public technical institution such as the Government Polytechnic College, headed by a qualified Principal, meets the requirement of an “appropriate laboratory” or expert body for the purposes of consumer adjudication.
The Commission is entitled to assess the comparative reliability of different reports, including the method of examination, expertise of the authors, thoroughness, and consistency.

Thus, the decision reinforces that consumer fora have discretion in weighing expert evidence, and that independent public institutions can serve as appropriate expert bodies. It is not mandatory that only a particular kind of accredited testing facility can opine on manufacturing defects.

5.3 Warranty-Period Defects and Implied Warranty of Fitness

The High Court uses the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence to reaffirm two layers of protection for consumers:

5.3.1 Express Warranty

Automobile manufacturers typically provide a written warranty for a specified period or mileage, promising to repair or replace defective parts free of cost. In the present case:

The complaint was filed during the warranty period.
The vehicle displayed persistent problems throughout this period.
Under Article 10 of the Warranty and Free Services clause of the dealership agreement, the manufacturer was contractually obliged to reimburse the dealer for replacing or repairing defective parts during the warranty period.

This established not only the consumer’s right to free repairs but also the manufacturer’s underlying obligation to stand behind the dealer’s servicing actions.

5.3.2 Implied Warranty of Fitness

Beyond the written warranty, Indian law (including principles encoded in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and endorsed by Supreme Court decisions) recognises an implied warranty that goods sold by a manufacturer to a consumer are:

of merchantable quality, and
reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought, particularly when the consumer relies on the manufacturer’s skill and judgment.

As the Supreme Court held in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra, a vehicle must be reasonably fit for its intended purpose of safe and reliable transportation. A persistent vibration in first and reverse gears from day one is incompatible with this implied standard.

The High Court thus treats the manufacturer’s obligation not as a matter of grace or goodwill but as rooted in both:

contractual obligations (written warranty and dealership agreement), and
statutory and common law principles on implied warranty and fitness for purpose.

5.4 Joint and Several Liability of Manufacturer and Dealer

A central doctrinal point reinforced by this judgment is the joint and several liability of the manufacturer and dealer when defects surface and persist during the warranty period.

The High Court reasons as follows:

The dealer acts as the agent or representative of the manufacturer for after-sales service and warranty work.
Under the dealership agreement, the manufacturer indemnifies and reimburses the dealer for warranty claims (such as replacement of defective parts).
It is not the manufacturer’s case that the defect emerged after expiry of the warranty.
Once a defect is noticed within the warranty period and persists despite service attempts, both the dealer and manufacturer bear responsibility for the resulting deficiency in service.

The High Court explicitly states:

“Once the defect is noticed within the warranty period, both dealer and manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service.”

This means:

The consumer can recover the entire awarded amount from either the dealer or the manufacturer (or both), leaving inter se adjustment to be settled contractually between them.
The manufacturer cannot wash its hands of defects by pointing to the dealer as an independent entity, especially where the defect arises from manufacturing and not from mishandling or misuse by the consumer.

The reliance on AIR 2011 SC 523, in which both dealer and manufacturer were held liable when an independent expert confirmed an inherent manufacturing defect, further entrenches this principle.

5.5 Power of Consumer Fora to Implead the Manufacturer Suo Motu

One of the manufacturer’s core legal arguments was jurisdictional: the Commission, being “not a civil court”, allegedly had no power to implead the manufacturer suo motu once the complaint had already been filed against only the dealer.

The High Court decisively rejects this proposition. Its reasoning can be unpacked as follows:

Consumer fora are quasi-judicial bodies created under the Consumer Protection Act to afford inexpensive and expeditious remedies. While they are not civil courts, they are vested with powers necessary to decide disputes effectively, including summoning parties, receiving evidence, and, by necessary implication, adding parties whose presence is essential for complete adjudication.
In the present case, once it appeared that:
- there might be a manufacturing defect, and
- the dealer was acting in the course of its dealership with the manufacturer,
the manufacturer was, in effect, a necessary party. Any order concerning the defect and warranty obligations would directly affect the manufacturer’s rights and liabilities.
To exclude the manufacturer from the proceedings would render the warranty clause meaningless and would not allow full and effective relief to the consumer.
The manufacturer is the producer and technical expert most capable of diagnosing and rectifying manufacturing defects; its presence was therefore critical to a fair and informed adjudication.

The High Court therefore concludes that in such circumstances the Commission not only could, but ought to have impleaded the manufacturer, and doing so did not exceed its jurisdiction. This interpretation strengthens the consumer fora’s capacity to do complete justice.

5.6 Evaluation of the Defence of Lack of Opportunity and Prejudice

The manufacturer contended that:

it was impleaded only at a late stage;
the complaint had not been originally directed against it; and
it did not have a fair chance to lead evidence or contest the allegations.

The High Court finds these contentions unpersuasive, highlighting several facts:

After impleadment:
- the manufacturer was formally notified by the Commission;
- it was represented by the same counsel who represented the dealer; and
- it chose to submit its own engineer’s report asserting the car was roadworthy.
Having voluntarily opted for this mode of participation, the manufacturer cannot later claim it had no opportunity to adduce evidence. Nothing prevented it from:
- seeking further examination of the vehicle,
- producing additional expert testimony, or
- cross-examining those who had authored the adverse report.
The Commission’s record shows that the manufacturer had ample time and notice to engage with the case but did not adequately challenge the independent expert findings. This is a matter of litigation strategy, not denial of natural justice.

The High Court thus applies a pragmatic test: where a party has been effectively heard and has actively participated after being impleaded, alleged procedural irregularities do not invalidate the outcome.

5.7 Relief: Refund or Replacement of the Vehicle

The Commission granted the consumer a choice:

either a refund of ₹7,00,000/- with litigation costs (while the dealer/manufacturer retained the car), or
replacement of the defective vehicle with a new one, with the consumer required to pay only any price difference between the new model and the original price (₹7.05 lakhs).

While some Supreme Court decisions, including Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra, have opted for replacement of defective parts rather than the entire vehicle, the High Court notes that:

In this case, the defect was persistent, fundamental, and inherent, affecting the vehicle from the moment of purchase.
Multiple repair attempts over two years failed, and the car remained with the dealer from 2009 onwards, depriving the consumer of the use of his purchase.
An independent expert confirmed a manufacturing defect, and the manufacturer failed to either correct it or decisively rebut that finding.

In such circumstances, ordering a mere part replacement would not provide real or adequate relief. The chosen remedy is consistent with the Supreme Court’s approach in AIR 2011 SC 523, where refund of the full price and taxes was granted.

The High Court therefore upholds the relief as:

proportionate to the gravity and persistence of the defect,
consistent with consumer jurisprudence, and
necessary to restore the consumer to the position he would have occupied had a defect-free vehicle been supplied.

6. Impact and Broader Significance

6.1 Strengthening Consumer Protection in the Automobile Sector

This judgment reinforces a consumer-centric approach in disputes relating to defective automobiles. Key implications include:

Consumers can expect that persistent defects manifesting early and continuing during the warranty period will likely be treated as manufacturing defects or serious deficiencies in service.
The law does not require consumers to endure repeated unsuccessful repair attempts indefinitely. Where the defect is not cured within a reasonable time, consumers may be entitled to replacement or refund.

6.2 Guidance to Consumer Fora on Expert Evidence

The judgment provides useful guidance for consumer fora:

Independent reports from public technical institutions (such as polytechnic colleges, engineering colleges, or government testing facilities) can properly serve as expert evidence.
Fora are entitled to prefer one expert report over another based on clarity, methodology, independence, and consistency, even if some other report comes from a government workshop or from the manufacturer’s personnel.
A requirement for a report to be from a narrowly defined “accredited laboratory” is not a rigid precondition to granting relief.

This encourages consumer fora to actively seek competent technical input without being paralysed by procedural formalities.

6.3 Clarifying the Manufacturer–Dealer–Consumer Triangle

The judgment clarifies how obligations flow among manufacturer, dealer, and consumer:

The dealer is not an entirely independent entity; in matters concerning manufacturing defects and warranty repairs, the dealer acts for and on behalf of the manufacturer.
The dealership agreement (e.g., Article 10) typically ensures that manufacturers reimburse dealers for warranty claims. This internal arrangement cannot be used to dilute the consumer’s rights directly against the manufacturer.
Joint and several liability ensures that the risk of dealer insolvency or default does not undermine the consumer’s ability to obtain relief.

Automobile manufacturers, therefore, must exercise effective oversight of their dealer network and maintain robust systems for handling consumer complaints during the warranty period.

6.4 Procedural Flexibility of Consumer Fora

By endorsing the Commission’s power to implead the manufacturer suo motu, the High Court emphasises:

Consumer fora have procedural flexibility and are not constrained by the strict technical rules of civil procedure.
The overriding objective is to do substantial justice between the parties, including bringing on record all persons whose presence is necessary for an effective and enforceable adjudication.
Parties cannot later take advantage of the fact that they were not originally named if they were subsequently impleaded, notified, and heard.

This approach deters manufacturers from taking purely technical or procedural defences to avoid substantive examination of defects.

6.5 Influence on Warranty Drafting and After-Sales Practices

Given the Court’s emphasis on implied warranty, joint liability, and the binding nature of dealership arrangements, manufacturers are likely to:

Revisit and clarify their warranty terms to ensure that they are consistent with the law and do not purport to exclude statutory rights of consumers.
Invest in better quality control and pre-delivery inspection to reduce the incidence of vehicles with latent manufacturing defects entering the market.
Strengthen internal monitoring of dealer workshops, ensuring timely and effective resolution of complaints raised during the warranty period.
Provide better training and documentation to service personnel to ensure that genuine complaints are neither dismissed nor delayed.

The judgment thereby exerts a regulatory influence on industry practice, even though it emerges from a private dispute.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 Manufacturing Defect vs. Other Types of Defects

A manufacturing defect arises when a particular unit (or batch) departs from the intended design or specification, due to flaws in the manufacturing process. For example, misalignment in the gearbox assembly leading to vibration.
A design defect exists when the product is made exactly as planned, but the plan itself is unsafe or unsuitable (e.g., a car designed with an inherently unstable suspension).
A service defect (deficiency in service) occurs when the after-sales service is inadequate—for instance, failing to carry out promised repairs, doing so negligently, or unreasonably delaying them.

In this case, the problem (vibration in gears from the beginning) was treated as a manufacturing defect, with additional elements of deficiency in service because of the failure to cure it during the warranty period.

7.2 Deficiency in Service

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, “deficiency” means:

any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law or has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of a contract or otherwise, in relation to any service.

In this context:

The manufacturer and dealer undertook to provide free and effective repair service during the warranty period.
The continuing defect, despite repeated service visits, and the prolonged retention of the vehicle since 2009, constituted a serious shortcoming in the manner of performance of that service.

The High Court therefore recognised deficiency in service both on the part of the dealer and the manufacturer.

7.3 Implied Warranty and Fitness for Purpose

Even if a written warranty were absent, the law implies certain assurances in a sale of goods:

The goods must be of merchantable quality – i.e., reasonably fit for sale as goods of that description.
If the buyer makes his purpose known and relies on the seller’s skill and judgment, there is an implied condition that the goods will be fit for that particular purpose.

For a new car:

The intended purpose is safe and comfortable transportation without unusual noise, vibration, or malfunction.
A car that persistently vibrates in certain gears from the outset is not “fit” in that sense.

The High Court, following the Supreme Court, recognises this implied warranty of reasonable fitness and holds that the manufacturer’s liability flows from both express and implied obligations.

7.4 Joint and Several Liability

“Joint and several liability” means:

Each liable party (here, the dealer and the manufacturer) is responsible for the entire amount of the liability towards the consumer.
The consumer may choose to recover the amount from either one or both; if one pays more than its fair share, it can later seek contribution or indemnity from the other.

This doctrine protects consumers by ensuring that their remedy does not depend on the internal arrangements between dealer and manufacturer. The High Court’s affirmation of joint and several liability thus significantly strengthens the efficacy of consumer remedies.

7.5 “Appropriate Laboratory” and Expert Opinion

Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as it then stood) allowed consumer fora to refer goods for analysis or testing to an “appropriate laboratory”, defined broadly to include any recognised or government-maintained laboratory or any other laboratory recognized by the government.

In lay terms, what matters is that:

the testing body is technically competent,
it is independent of the parties, and
its methods and conclusions are clear and reasoned.

The Government Polytechnic College, being a public technical institution headed by qualified engineers, clearly satisfies this threshold. The High Court, therefore, treats its report as reliable expert evidence, without requiring any additional formality of accreditation.

8. Conclusion

The judgment in Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Mohammad Ashraf Khan & Ors is a significant addition to consumer jurisprudence, particularly in the context of automobile defects. Its key contributions can be distilled as follows:

Manufacturing defects and warranty-period protection: Persistent defects manifesting soon after purchase and continuing during the warranty period give rise to strong inferences of manufacturing defect and deficiency in service, especially where independent expert evidence confirms the problem.
Implied warranty of fitness: The law implies a warranty that a car will be reasonably fit for its intended purpose. Repeated vibration in critical gears from the outset violates this implied standard and engages the manufacturer’s liability.
Joint and several liability of dealer and manufacturer: Where defects arise within the warranty period, both the dealer and the manufacturer are jointly and severally liable for the resulting deficiency in service. Internal arrangements or reimbursement clauses between them do not dilute the consumer’s rights.
Consumer fora’s power to implead manufacturers: Consumer fora may implead manufacturers suo motu when necessary to render complete relief, even if they are not civil courts. So long as the manufacturer is notified, heard, and allowed to participate, the impleadment is valid and does not cause actionable prejudice.
Use and evaluation of expert evidence: Independent technical reports from public institutions such as polytechnic colleges may properly serve as expert evidence. Consumer fora can legitimately prefer such reports over less reliable or self-serving reports, without being constrained by overly formal notions of accreditation.
Appropriateness of refund or replacement: When an inherent manufacturing defect persists despite repeated repair attempts and the consumer is effectively deprived of the use of the vehicle, consumer fora may lawfully award refund of the purchase price or replacement of the entire vehicle, not merely repair or replacement of a part.

In the broader legal context, this decision reaffirms the consumer-protective orientation of Indian law and sends a clear signal to manufacturers and dealers that:

warranty obligations are substantive, not perfunctory;
technicalities about party impleadment will not defeat legitimate consumer claims; and
failure to act decisively and transparently in the face of credible defect allegations may result in substantial remedial orders, including refund or replacement.

Accordingly, the High Court’s affirmation of the Commission’s award in this case stands as a robust precedent promoting accountability in the automobile industry and strengthening the enforceability of consumer rights in warranty-related disputes.

Impleadment of Manufacturer and Joint Liability for Warranty-Period Defects under Consumer Law: Commentary on Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Mohammad Ashraf Khan