IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Evidence - The District Forum in pursuance of its mandate under Section 13 was required to have the necessary evidence produced before it prior to drawing an adverse inference.
(2) Order to replace a vehicle - An order to replace a vehicle with costs certainly amounts to punitive damages.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) against the order dated 25.01.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.90 of 2012.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant had purchased a three wheeler scooter (Vikram 410 G make) bearing registration number DL-1 LH-2898 from the petitioner in November 2006 for a price of Rs 1,45,108/- excluding insurance charges. The complainant paid Rs.35,000/- and Rs 95,150/- was financed by respondent no. 2. The balance of Rs 14,958/- was to be paid by the respondent no. 1 by 02.01.2007. On 02.01.2007 the respondent no.1 issued a cheque of Rs 11,658/- towards the balance amount and left the three wheeler in the premises of the petitioner. He then filed a consumer complaint (No. 78 of 2007) in the District Forum, Faridabad alleging that the three wheeler purchased by him had developed serious manufacturing defect and had become unfit for plying on 05.11.2006 and thereafter again on 20.11.2006. It was alleged that the respondent refused to replace the said vehicle even though it was within the guarantee period. The petitioner in his reply contended that the respondent no.1 had not paid the full price of the vehicle as the cheque of Rs 11,658/- was dishonoured and there was no manufacturing defect as no complaint had been made by the respondent on this account. It was submitted that the vehicle had been abandoned at the premises of the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 as he was an employee of the IDBI Bank and because the contract with the company for engaging the three wheeler had been terminated. The vehicle had been taken possession of by the respondent no.2 as the financier and it was he who delivered the vehicle to a third party who paid the balance loan installments. It was also contended that as the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, the Act was not applicable.

3. In consumer complaint no.78 of 2007 filed by respondent no.1, the District Forum, Faridabad passed the following order on 19.10.2011:—

“6. There is no dispute that the complainant purchased a three wheeler from respondent no.1 somewhere in November 2006 which developed a defect and became unfit for running on 05.11.2006. It was taken to respondent no.1 who effected the repairs and handed over the three wheeler to complainant. But again on 20.11.2006 the three wheeler became unfit for running. The complainant left it with respondent no.1 and since then it has been lying in the custody of the said respondent. The three wheeler was within the guarantee period when it became unfit for running on the road.

7. So it is clear from the unrebutted evidence of the complainant that the three wheeler purchased by him from respondent no.1 had serious manufacturing defect on account of which it became unworthy of running on the road shortly after its purchase by the complainant. Since 20.11.2006 the three wheeler has been lying in the custody of respondent no.1. The respondent is therefore, liable to replace the said three wheeler with a new one of the same make without asking for any more price from the complainant.

8. Resultantly, respondent no.1 is directed to replace three wheeler of complainant bearing no. DL 1 LH 2898 with a brand new three wheeler of the same make without asking for any more amount towards the price of the three wheeler and respondent no.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses and mental harassment.”

4. The petitioner approached the State Commission in First Appeal no. 90 of 2012. Vide its order dated 25.01.2012, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment of the District Forum as below:—

“Under the circumstances, the reasons given in the application were taken as inadequate and insufficient to condo