ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) challenges order dated 16.02.2016 of the Haryana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the “State Commission”) allowing Appeal No. 964 of 2015 and setting aside the order dated 31.08.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in short, “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 108 of 2014.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the material placed on record and the arguments urged before us. The delay of 21 days in the filing of the revision petition was condoned in the interest of justice.

3. The relevant facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner had purchased an I-20 ASTA CRD1 car on 04.04.2013 for a consideration of Rs.7,79,000/- from respondent no.2 which was duly registered with registration number HR14 J8011. The vehicle was covered with warranty for a period of 36 months or 80,000 kilometres from the date of delivery. On 14.08., after running for 8500 kms the car met with an accident due to failure of brake near Karnal. The petitioner had the vehicle repaired by respondent no.2 at a cost of Rs.9,200/-. On 17.09.2013 the vehicle met with an accident due to brake failure and was again sent for repairs on 18.09.2013. The car was repaired and returned on 26.03.2014. However, it suffered from a sound from the engine which was not resolved and the car sent to respondent no.3/garage. Respondents 2 and 3 are the Authorised Dealer and Service Centre respectively of respondent no. 1. The petitioner submitted that the car was still with the respondents. As there was no response to a legal notice issued by him, petitioner filed complaint no. 108 of 2014 before the District Forum. An ex parte order was pronounced by the District Forum after placing respondents 1 and 2 ex parte in view of their failure to appear before it. The District Forum held, on the basis of this Commission’s order in Vinoo Bhagat vs General Motors, FA 150 of 1998 dated 30.01.2003 that the frequent requirement of repairs of a new car indicated that it suffered from a manufacturing defect and it was held that the car in question had been sent on three occasions after purchase within one year and had done only 11,233 km as on 20.09.2013. The petitioner contended that between 10.07.2013 and 20.09.2013 the car was kept by respondent 2 for a long period of time for repair and even thereafter the vehicle was not properly rectified and that the car was still in the possession of the respondents. In appeal, the State Commission held that the District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint since the damage to the car was due to an accident which was not covered under the policy and the petitioner had failed to show that it suffered from a manufacturing defect since the defect was on account of an accident. This order is impugned before us.

4. Petitioner contended that the State Commission had incorrectly concluded that there was no manufacturing defect in the car. The car had met with an accident on two occasions since its brake system suffered from a manufacturing defect. The State Commission had failed to appreciate that there had neither been any “misuse, abuse, accident, theft, flooding or fire” which were covered under Clause 3 of the Warranty Policy. It was further contended that the vehicle had remained in the possession of the respondents for more than seven months within one year of its purchase and had continued to remain on the date of the complaint. The State Commission had also failed to apply the ratio of the judgement of the National Commission in Vinoo Bhagat (supra). It was therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the order of the District Forum restored.

5. Per contra, respondent argued that the vehicle in question underwent repairs twice occasioned by accidents and that under the wa