IMPORTANT POINT
Every defect in vehicle cannot be termed as manufacturing defect.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision Petition No. 2920 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 30.04.2013, passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (short, “State Commission”) in First Appeal Nos.1140/2010 & 585/2010.

2. The facts of the present case as per complaint are that the petitioner/complainant purchased a Bolero SLX made Mahindra & Mahindra Chassis No.82G10444, Engine No.GA84G41190 bearing Registration No.PB-12 K-7856 from the respondents/opposite parties on 6.8.2008. The vehicle Bolero had a manufacture defect. Whenever there was rain, water drops from the rear side of the dashboard and doors would fall on the front mats and within few minutes it would become a pool of water inside the vehicle.

3. The petitioner on number of times gave his vehicle to the respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 for the repair of above mentioned problem but till today the same problem exists. First time when the petitioner detected the problem in September, 2008, he brought it to the notice of respondent no.2 on 4.9.2009, then the vehicle was held up for 2 days by the respondent no.2, but the problem was not rectified. The petitioner brought this fact to the notice of respondent no.1/opposite party no.1 at customer care through E-mail.

4. Till December, 2008 the vehicle was held up by the respondents 2-3 times for more than 3-4 days on every occasion for repair and in lieu of that no alternative vehicle was provided to the petitioner. Yet the problem was not rectified by the respondents. Moreover, during the time of repairs the ceiling of cabin, floor mats of driver side had been totally filled with dust and two plugs of dashboard assembly to cover the mounting bolts had been misplaced by the respondent no.2. The above facts and circumstances were explained and brought to the notice of the Customer Care Centre of the respondents by the petitioner on various occasions, but no one turned up for feedback. When the problem was not handled/repaired by the respondents, the petitioner demanded from the respondents that they either change the vehicle or refund the price of the vehicle. The petitioner was instructed by the respondents to wait for same time as the demand of the petitioner had been forwarded for further action. In his complaint before the District Forum, petitioner prayed that in the interest of justice, the respondents should be directed to pay him the following relief :

a) Replace the vehicle with new one or refund the price of the vehicle Balero SLX Rs.6,00,000/-

b) Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the harassment, inconvenience, frustration and mental agony suffered by the petitioner.

c) Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation and other expenses.

5. Respondent no.1 in their reply before the District Forum raised the following preliminary objections/submissions ;

* That there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent at any point of time, which is a condition precedent for filing the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and as such, the complaint is not maintainable on merits.

* That the complaint against the opposite party no.1 is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainants and merits dismissal with heavy costs.

* That the matter does not fall within the provision of Consumer Dispute, which is against a condition precedent for maintaining the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as such the complaint is not maintainable and merits dismissal.

* That since a complicated question of law and evidence has been involved in the present case and a lengthy process of examination and cross examination of witnesses including summoning of witnesses and record which will be voluminous and as such, the Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

* That before the delivery of any new vehicle to a customer, a complete check-up of the vehicle is done by a team of technical experts, where each