IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Manufacturing Defect – The term ‘Manufacturing Defect’ as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary is a deviation from design specifications during production resulting in a product’s defect, frailty or shortcoming.”.
(2) Observations – A mere denial by raising an objection in a generalized form does not dilute the observations about the facts that have been pointed out by the expert and has been corroborated by the job cards maintained from August 2008 onwards till 2010.

ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed by International Cars and Motors Limited and Anr. who are the manufacturers of Rhino RX SUVs. From the Array of Parties it appears that they are of the Sonalika Group and the dispute in the present Complaint is about such a vehicle having developed deficiencies, the Complaint whereof was filed by Respondent No. – 1 herein, being Consumer Complaint No. 88 of 2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulum, Kerala. The Complaint also arrayed the dealer, Respondent No. – 2, M/s Maxim International Cars, Kochi from where the Complainant had purchased the vehicle. The vehicle had been financed by Respondent No. – 3.

2. The District Commission vide Order dated 27.08.2012 allowed the Complaint holding that the manufacturers, the Petitioners herein together with the dealer, Respondent No. – 2 herein were liable jointly and severally to refund Rs.7,60,000/- after deducting 30%, and the Complainant shall return the defective vehicle to the Opposite Parties simultaneously. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed.

3. Aggrieved the Petitioners along with the dealer joined in First Appeal No. 927 of 2012 and contested the order passed by the District Commission where it was held that since the dealership had been closed, the Opposite Party was rightly directed by the District Commission to refund the price after deducting 30% as the vehicle had covered about 90,000 kms. The Appeal was dismissed subject to the said directions against which the present Petition has been filed only by the Manufacturers, and not by the Dealer.

4. There was a delay of 2 days in the filing of the Revision Petition as reported by the office and on 06.11.2015 notices were issued on the Revision Petition with an interim order that the execution of the impugned order shall remain stayed subject to the Petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the District Commission. The order dated 06.11.2015 is quoted herein under:

“De hors, outcome of the present revision petition, in the event of the petitioners directly remitting a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No. 1 by way of demand draft to meet travel and sundry expenses in connection with the present proceedings, issue notice of the revision petition as also the application for condonation of delay to the respondents, returnable on 9.5.2016.

In the meanwhile, execution of the impugned order is stayed subject to petitioners depositing Rs.1,00,000/- with the District Forum concerned within four weeks.

IA. No. 4799 of 2015 is disposed of accordingly.”

5. The contesting Respondent No. 1 put in appearance and the case came to be listed on several occasions for service of notice on Respondent No. – 2 the Dealer through publication. The fresh address of the Respondent No. – 2 was required to be brought on record through an amended memo which was not done. Thereafter the matter kept on being adjourned on the ground of service of notice and fresh address till 2020 whereafter the pandemic intervened and the case was adjourned accordingly. Respondent No. – 2 remained unserved whereas the Counsel for Respondent No. 1 (Complainant) and 3 (Financer) have been shown to have appeared in the order sheet dated 21.03.2022. Notices were again issued for service on Respondent No. – 2 whereafter the case was listed and adjourned. On 31.01.2023 publication was ordered for Respondent No. – 2. The publication was made that has been recorded on 05.02.2024. Since the Respondent No. 1 and 2 did not appear, they were proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 05.02.2024. The case could not be taken up thereafter when finally on 07.01.2025 the matter was finally heard after hearing the Petitioners and the Respondent No. – 3. Thus the main Complainant even though had been represented earlier, no one has appeared on her behalf nor any appearance as been put forth on behalf of Respondent No. – 2, the dealer who is reported to have closed down.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for