IMPORTANT POINT
When there is an irregularity in the orders of the lower fora, the same can be challenged in the appellate court and can be setaside.

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2011 in CC No.02/2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) Abhay R. Bhatwadekar (now deceased represented by his Legal Heirs) preferred this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed his Complaint after holding the same devoid of any substance.

2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that on 02.05.2000 the Complainant made a payment of Rs.95,853/- towards booking amount of a passenger car i.e. Tata Indica-Euro-II-Diesel-DLX bearing registration No.MH-02-JA-8485 with Concord Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “dealer”). The car is manufactured by Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the manufacturer”). He paid an amount of Rs.3,63,000/- on 11.05.2000 as per the estimate of the dealer with the list of additional accessories. The dealer issued sales invoice dated 15.05.2000 to him. He further paid a sum of Rs.15,755/- towards insurance premium of the said vehicle. It was stated that the dealer promised to deliver the car on 15.05.2000. However, till 26.05.2000, the car was not delivered and when the Complainant went for taking the delivery of the car, he was shocked to find that the said vehicle was not in a road-worthy condition. It was averred that the central locking could not be fitted because the entire stock of locking system had been stolen and the engine of the said car roared like a modern jet when started. The mechanic of the dealer poured engine oil by taking out the same from the gauge and sprinkled on the fan belt, but the engine was not functional. It was pleaded that the dealer insisted that the Complainant take delivery of the said car, but the Complainant refused to do so and immediately brought the said fact to the notice of the Senior Vice President of the Manufacturer vide letter dated 26.05.2000 and asked for refund of his money along with interest @ 24% p.a. or in the alternative replace with another car free of defects. The manufacturer vide its letter dated 29.05.2000 expressed regret for the inconvenience caused due to the unexpected fan belt noise and assured to return the car after repairing the same on 30.05.2000. The Complainant immediately called upon the dealer seeking information regarding the rectifications carried out. It was stated that vide its letter dated 30.05.2000 the dealer assured the delivery of the car in absolutely good condition and admitted that there was a problem in the A.C. and the alternator belt and that they had sent the car to the workshop at Pune and that they would be delivering the said car to the Complainant on 30.05.2000.

3. It was pleaded that the Complainant refused to take delivery of the car as the same was defective, but the dealer forcibly handed over the delivery of the vehicle to the Complainant at his premises, contrary to the usual procedure of effective delivery at the showroom. It was averred that by its letter dated 20.05.2000 the dealer regretted the inconvenience caused to him.

4. It was pleaded by the Complainant that the car was not delivered defect-free. It had to be taken to the dealer for repairs on nearly 8 occasions in a period of one year, without any result. The Complainant then lodged a Complaint with Western India Automobile Association which sent the car to Mid Town Motors for a detailed inspection and a third party opinion. Mid Town Motors had given an opinion supporting the version of the Complainant. The Complainant then lodged a Complaint with the Chairman of the manufacturer and vide his letter dated 17.10.2011 called upon the manufacturer to replace the vehicle or refund the entire consideration of the same, but received no favourable response. It was stated that the car had spent more time in the garage than on the road and during that period when the car was not functioning, he wa