The main legal point established in the judgment is that to claim total replacement by a new vehicle, the complainant must prove the existence of an inherent manufacturing defect with credible evidence supported by the opinion of an expert.

ORDER

K.S. Chaudhari, (P.M) - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10.03.2014 passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 127 of 2011 - M/s. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Sh. Bhawesh Narula by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent purchased Skoda Fabia diesel car from OP No. 2 / Petitioner No. 2 on 14.10.2009 for a sum of Rs. 6,35,950/- which was manufactured by OP No. 1/Petitioner No. 1. On 17.05.2010. When complainant was in Dehradun, the vehicle had pick-up problem which was brought to the notice of the opposite party No. 2. The complainant was told that the vehicle requires servicing. The Service Manager of the opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that all the filters of the vehicle including the diesel filter needs to be replaced. The diesel filter is required to be replaced only after the vehicle had run 30,000 kms. The complainant agreed for change of the filters. The vehicle was repaired by the opposite party No. 2 the same day and was delivered to the complainant on 17.05.2010 itself after repairs. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 7,630/- for the work carried out in the vehicle. The complainant drove the vehicle from Dehradun to Haldwani. However, when the complainant reached Kashipur, the vehicle again started creating same problem. The complainant somehow reached Haldwani and took the vehicle to the opposite party No. 3/Respondent No.3 - M/s Channel Motors, Haldwani on 28.05.2010. There, the Service Manager of the opposite party No. 3 told the complainant that the filters of the vehicle have not been changed by the opposite party No. 2 and that the repair work will take one day. The complainant left the vehicle with the opposite party No. 3 and came back the next day to take the delivery of the vehicle. The complainant was told that the problem in the vehicle is not detectable. In order to detect the problem / fault in the vehicle, every part of the engine was opened. Inspite of above, the fault in the vehicle could not be detected and after a period of 20 days, the complainant was told that there is some injector problem in the vehicle and the injector is required to be replaced and the cost thereof has to be borne by the complainant. The complainant asked the opposite party No. 3/Respondent No.3 that the vehicle is under warranty and, therefore, the injector should be replaced free of cost, but the opposite party No. 3 refused to replace the injector free of cost. The complainant asked the opposite party No. 3 to replace the injector because he was facing difficulty. The complainant was told that the part, which is required to be changed, is not available with it and it is required to be ordered from the opposite party No. 1. On 13.07.2010, the complainant was told by the opposite party No. 3 that the injector has been received and the same has been replaced, but the vehicle was creating the same problem. Then every part of the engine was again opened, but the defect in the vehicle could not be found. The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 22.07.2010 for replacing the car in question with a new car, but inspite of service of the notice upon the opposite parties, the needful was not done. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OPs resisted complaint and OP No. 1 pleaded that the vehicle needs to be sent to appropriate laboratory for analysis as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the vehicle is not lying in unrepaired condition; that on examination of the vehicle, it was found that the problem of pick-up occurred because of use of adulterated fuel and on account thereof, the piston injector was damaged; that the same was not covered under th