IMPORTANT POINT
Repair done mainly related to denting, painting and body welding, said job card does not show that any internal part of engine damaged in such accident, conditions of warranty that if car meets with accident, warranty will be discharged, not applicable in case.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.09.2014, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. A/06/2396, vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amravati dated 14.09.2006 in Consumer Complaint No. 155/2001, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1 purchased a Maruti dx800 car from respondent no. 2/opposite party no. 2, dealer, manufactured by the present petitioner/opposite party no. 1 on 18.10.2000. It has been alleged in the consumer complaint dated 10.06.2001 filed before the District Forum that the car suddenly broke-down on 05.06.2001 on the outskirts of Ahmednagar while coming from Pune to Amravati. The car remained with M/s. Sarada Motors Ltd. from 05.06.2001 to 28.06.2001 for repairs and delivered back to him on 28.06.2001. In the meantime, he asked the Company for replacement and to compensate for the monetary loss suffered by him till date. Thereafter also, there were various problems in the working of the car. The complainant alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the car and he requested the petitioner Company for replacement of the vehicle. The car was inspected by an Engineer from the petitioner on 24.07.2001 and road test was carried out in which it was found that the car gave a mileage of 18.3 km per litre of fuel, while it used to give mileage of 22 km per litre earlier. The warranty period of the vehicle was extended by six months after this inspection. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the manufacturer as well as to the dealer for replacement of the vehicle and to pay the monetary loss suffered by him and the difference in the mileage cost. He also demanded Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.

3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Company and respondent no. 2, dealer by filing written statements before the District Forum. It was stated by the petitioner/opposite party no. 1 that there was no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part as the vehicle had been repaired during the warranty period as per the terms and conditions of the same. There was no manufacturing defect in the car. It was further stated that the vehicle met with an accident due to negligence of the complainant on 17.03.2001 and the accidental repair was made by opposite party no. 2, dealer on paid basis. Further, the fuel consumption of the vehicle depended upon a number of factors like fuel quality, driving habits, periodical maintenance, traffic conditions etc. The fuel consumption was inspected by opposite party no. 2 on 07.09.2001 vide job card no. 0003932 in the presence of the complainant and the fuel average was found to be 25.95 kms per litre. The petitioner/opposite party no. 1 requested that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious and filed with ulterior motive to harass the opposite parties and obtain undue gain. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. The opposite party no. 2, dealer stated in their written statement that the second service was carried out at their service station on 01.09.2001. There was no fault in the vehicle at that time and its functioning was satisfactory. Opposite party no. 2 also stated that the mileage of the vehicle was checked on 07.09.2001 in the presence of the complainant and found to be 25.95 km per litre. The complainant had deliberately suppressed the fact that the vehicle had met with an accident on 17.03.2001. On 24.07.2001, road test had been conducted by a Company Engineer from Pune and the complainant was satisfied. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments made by the parties, partl