ORDER :

R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons' stated in the application for the condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 16 days in filing the present petition.

2. Challenge in these proceedings is to the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Fora below, i.e., order dated 16.06.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam and thereafter order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in appeal no. 472/2010. Both the fora below have found the petitioner deficient in rendering service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice in selling a 2006 model Mitsubishi Lancer Diesel car to the complainant as a 2007 model car, the car having in fact been earlier used by the petitioner for demonstration purposes.

3. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the findings of the fora below on the ground that the same are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material produced on record. He submits that the petitioner committed no deficiency in service by delivering a 20