ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section-21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 26.03.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. FA/2016/26 & FA/2016/33, wherein the Appeals filed by the Respondents/ OPs was partly allowed and setting aside the Order dated 07.01.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 332/2013.

2. There was 93 days delay in filing the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA No. 9603/2016, the delay is condoned.

3. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief relevant facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant purchased a new vehicle - ‘Dost LS BSLLL FSD Light Blue’, Regn No. CG-07-ACA-6397 from OP-2 who is an authorized agent/dealer of OP-1, the manufacturer, on 23.01.2012 for Rs.5,20,000/-. To finance this, he arranged funds by mortgaging personal assets, including a loan from M/s. Shree Ram Transport Finance and jewelry from ‘Naveen Jewelers’. However, from the outset, the vehicle had following various manufacturing defects:

S. Defects in Dates/Period visited for

No. Vehicle repair

1. Oil Leakage 28.12.2012 to 29.12.2012

2. Oil Leakage 22.01.2013

3. Oil Leakage 28.01.2023

4. Oil Leakage 11.03.2013

5. Oil Leakage 11.04.2013 to 23.04.2013

6. Oil Leakage 27.04.2013 to 28.04.2013

7. Front Glass-WS &

Wind Screen Repair 17.05.2013

8. Oil Leakage 03.06.2013 to 11.06.2013

5. Despite reporting these defects and visiting multiple times for repair, the vehicle issues were not rectified as promised by OP-2. The defects persisted and, notably an apparent wiring issue that remained unaddressed despite being raised as a concern, reducing the vehicle’s overall functionality. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint No. 332/2013, seeking either a replacement vehicle or reimbursement of Rs.5,20,000/- with 12% interest per annum, alongside compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental distress, Rs.50,000/- for economic loss, and an additional Rs.20,000/- for unfair trade practices and deficient services.

6. In the reply, before the learned District Forum, OP-1 contended that the defects in the vehicle were addressed and rectified. The vehicle had in fact met with an accident, which led to the problems and OP-1 disclaimed responsibility for the accidental damages. OP-1 highlighted that during the first servicing, the vehicle had covered 5000 kilometers; and at the second servicing, it had reached 11000 kilometers. OP-1 contended that no complaint regarding oil leakage was raised by the Complainant during these service intervals, as there were no issues or defects noted at that time. OP-1 reiterated readiness to undertake servicing in line with the warranty terms and conditions. The case filed is not sustainable as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes. They supported the plea for dismissal of the complaint by affidavits from Tamal Nandi, Deputy Manager, and Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Senior Technician and other documents. In their reply, OP-2 outlined that the initial servicing of the vehicle was done on 25.12.2012 after it covered 5000 kilometres. At that time, there were no complaints regarding any oil leakage. The issue of oil jamming in the vehicle’s oil pipe was rectified by installing a new pipe. The vehicle was taken for subsequent services, including a free servicing and a paid servicing, during which no leakage complaints were reported. Even when the vehicle was brought to their workshop on 17.05.2013 in accidented condition, there were no complaints made regarding manufacturing defects. Due to the accident, the vehicle’s engine was impacted. Upon inspection, it was advised that an overhaul was necessary to recti