The court established that the appellant was a consumer and the fuel was not contaminated based on Bharat Stage norms, holding the respondent liable for deficiency in service.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Prem Narain, Presiding Member - This first appeal has been filed by the appellant M/s. Strands Saloon Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 20.11.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short 'the State Commission') passed in CC No.62 of 2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.05.2012, a car Audi Q5 2.0 TDI was purchased by the appellant vide Sale Certificate dated 10.05.2012 from the respondent No.1. It is alleged in the complaint that from the date of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant noticed various inherent defects, which were brought to the knowledge of OP No.1. The vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect and the OP No.1 repaired the same from time to time under the condition of warranty and otherwise. Apart from manufacturing defect in the vehicle which resulted in the seizure of the engine, the complainant also alleged that the manufacturing date, month and year of the vehicle was also doubtful. On 20.02.2014, the complainant got filed 73 litres of diesel in the vehicle. On 22.02.2014 when the complainant started the car at 8:00 p.m., the same did not start and the complainant called customer care of OP No.1. On 23.02.2014, the vehicle was towed to the workshop of OP No.1. The appellant/complainant explained to OP No.1 that the vehicle was then under warranty. The OPs did not repair the car and presented an estimate of Rs. 4,50,064/-. On 02.06.2014, complaint No.62 of 2014 was instituted by the appellant/complainant before the State Commission. On 20.11.2014, the complaint was decided by the State Commission and the same was dismissed. Hence the present first appeal against the order dated 20.11.2014.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the State Commission has observed that the complainant is not a consumer and secondly that the case of the complainant is covered under the exclusion clause for warranty that if the damage is due to contaminated fuel, then the warranty would not be valid. The car was under warranty at the time when it was brought to the workshop. However, the OPs did not rectify the defects on the ground that warranty was not effective due to use of contaminated or improper fuel. For more than 3 years the vehicle is lying in the workshop. The sample of fuel was sent for testing by the OPs. However, the sample was not taken before the complainant or before the representative of the complainant. It has been wrongly alleged by the OPs that the fuel was sampled for sending to test in presence of the driver of the vehicle, who has signed the sample taken memo. OPs asked the complainant to pay for the repairs of the engine and the same was not covered under the warranty due to exclusion relating to use of contaminated fuel. It was argued by the learned counsel that the complainant was not sure which sample was sent for testing and therefore, the test report cannot be relied upon. The sample taken memo was not signed by the driver of the complainant and the signature of the driver has been forged by the OPs. The learned counsel argued that the signature on the sample taken memo alleged to be that of the driver do not match with the signature of the driver on other papers such as Tax invoice and on other repair invoices.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the State Commission has also found that the complainant is not a consumer and that the vehicle was purchased for the commercial purpose. In this regard the arguments of the OPs were accepted by the State Commission wherein the OPs had founded their allegation on some parts of the complaint as well as letters and e-mail sent to the OPs by the complainant mentioning loss of business. The fact of the matter is that the loss of business had occurred to the complainant because the vehicle was n