The main legal point established in the judgment is that even in the absence of a manufacturing defect, the totality of the facts and the condition of the purchased vehicle may warrant compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

1. This appeal is carried against the order dated 19.05.2009 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant and confirming the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short 'the State Commission')

2. The appellant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short 'the District Forum'). His complaint was that he purchased a vehicle manufactured by the respondent herein and when he took the vehicle for servicing he was informed that the vehicle which he has purchased as a new vehicle was, in fact, involved in an accident. He claimed the relief of replacement of the vehicle and also claimed compensation. In the complaint the respondent and also the dealer were made respondents. The District Forum found merit in the complaint of the appellant. In arriving at such a conclusion, reliance was placed on a report submitted by an expert. The District Forum directed replacement of the vehicle and ordered Rs.2000/- as costs.

3. In the appeal carried by the respondent, the State Commission has found that there was no manufacturing defect as such and took the following view:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the defects pointed out in the report of the surveyor are not sufficient to believe that the vehicle in question requires replacement with new vehicle. However, at the same time it is a case where the vehicle was delivered to the complainant by repainting and matching the same with the original colour. It is not the report that prior to repainting the vehicle in question had met with an accident or it was an old vehicle, rather, it is a case of the appellant the normal scratches are bound to develop while transporting the vehicle in trailer from the factory to the agency. We, therefore, are of the view that the ends of justice would met suitably if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is granted to the complainant for harassment and agony which he has to undergo on account of the aforesaid lapse pointed out by the surveyor in his report.

Accordingly, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. It is ordered that the appellant (opposite party) shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent (complainant) within a period of two months from today, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till realization."

4. It is this order which has been affirmed by dismissal of the revision carried by the appellant.

5. We have heard Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, learned Amicus Curie whom we appointed after noticing that after the death of the counsel who was originally appearing, a notice for alternative arrangement was issued and there was no appearance.

6. The learned Amicus contended that the report of the expert would reveal that 80% of the vehicle was repainted. The reason pointed out by the respondent-manufacturer was that when the vehicles are transported to the dealers, it would suffer normal scratches. It is his case that the fact that as 80% has to be repainted as is noticed in the report, the said explanation given by the respondent manufacturer may not hold good. Learned Amicus no doubt has pointed out that the report of the expert was made only after three years from the date of the purchase of the vehicle. He would submit that the report of the expert having been relied upon by the State Commission, the case of the respondent - manufacturer will not hold good.

7. Per Contra, Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel for the respondent would firstly invite our attention to the fact that the vehicle in question was brought for servicing and the service report which is produced along with the counter affidavit filed before this Court does not bear out the complaint of the appellant. The said report is dated 27.1.2000, a few months af