ORDER

These are two Revision Petitions filed one by the Manufacturer TATA Motors Ltd. being Petitioner in RP/4113/2011 and the other by Tayal India Motors Pvt. Ltd./ Dealer being Petitioner in RP/718/2012 against the common Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, State Commission) dated 26.08.2011, wherein the Appeal filed by the two Petitioners against the common Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, District Forum) was dismissed. The District Forum had allowed the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1/ Complainant, Jogender Sharma (since expired) and ordered replacement of the vehicle on the ground of manufacturing defect or in the alternative jointly and severally refund the value of the vehicle being Rs.7,25,617/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Aggrieved by the Order dated 07.12.2009 of the District Forum, the Petitioners, Tata Motors Pvt Ltd and Tayal India Motors Ltd. filed their Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide Order dated 26.08.2011 dismissed the Appeals with the following observations:-

“We are not in agreement the plea taken by the opposite parties, because the defects in the vehicle developed due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. In any case the defects developed within a week of its purchase. The manufacturer cannot wash its hands of raising plea that vehicles are transferred to dealer on principal to principal basis, as the warranty is by manufacturer and not of dealer. If any defect develops during warranty or some manufacturing defect is noticed during warranty, it is the manufacturer who is liable for replacement under warranty conditions. Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.N. Anantheran vs. M/S Fiat India Ltd., (2011) 1 CPC 39, wherein also despite change of engine defects still remaining ordered for refund of entire cost with interest @12%. More so, the defects which have occurred in the vehicle while it remained parked in the workshop with the dealer, the same is the responsibility of the dealer and not of the manufacturer. The Inspection Note dated 12th August, 2011 supports the version of the Complainant. Thus, both the dealer as well as the manufacturer of the vehicle are responsible to supply a new vehicle to the complainant having manufacturing defect and for that reason no case for interference in the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum is made out.”

3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to the filing of the Complainant and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same in detail, when the findings of both the fora are concurrent on facts.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the Manufacturer argued that the Diesel vehicle “Tata Safari Dicor Quartz” was purchased from Tayal India Motors Limited on 06.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.7,25,617/-. Learned District Forum solely on presumption wrongly concluded that the vehicle in question suffered from a manufacturing defect. Learned Counsel further argued that the members of the State Commission, lacking expertise in engineering, were not qualified to conduct any inspection of the vehicle in question. Therefore, the ‘inspection note’ had no legal sanctity. The Job Card is also not on record.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant argued that the Advocates representing the Petitioner failed to raise any objections to the inspection conducted by the members of the State Commission on 12.08.2011, after which the State Commission had passed the impugned Order dated 26.08.2011. The Complainant purchased the vehicle in question for Rs.7,25,617/- and used it only for 180 days before raising the present complaint. The Job Card had been filed with the District Forum. The vehicle experienced problems just 5-6 days after purchase, prompting the Complainant to take it