The court affirmed that the vehicle was legally repossessed due to the complainant's failure to repay the loan, with no proven defects in the vehicle.

1. Delay condoned

2. The present Revision Petition under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been preferred by the Petitioner / Complainant questioning the correctness and legality of the impugned Order dated 5.7.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 71 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the First Appeal filed by the Complainant and upheld the Order dated 4.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short, the "District Forum") dismissing his Complaint.

3. Succinctly put, the material facts leading to filing of the Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased a Bajaj Tempo Excel 2 Pick Up Van on 19.4.2004 from the Respondent No. 1, namely, Vishal Motors (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Dealer"), the Dealer of the Respondent No. 2, Bajaj Tempo Ltd., the Manufacturer (hereinafter referred to be as the "Manufacturer") for a sum of Rs.3,80,000. He paid a sum of 87,000 in cash to the Dealer and rest of the amount was got financed from the Respondent No. 3, HDFC Bank Ltd (hereinafter to be referred to as "the HDFC"). The Complainant was required to repay his loan in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.11,270. The Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.3,000 to the Dealer towards insurance, registration, road tax, accessories etc. According to the Complainant, at the time of purchasing the Van, he was informed by the Dealer that it was a new brand Vehicle. The Complainant took the Vehicle to his native place Pendra and started using it for transportation of goods. However, about 8 to 10 days of its purchase, the hub - rod of the Vehicle had broken and there was also complaint of frequent failure of power break or steering. On complaint, the Dealer rectified the defects in the Vehicle. After some time, the Vehicle again broke down in a jungle and the Dealer sent a Mechanic along with Complainant to rectify the defects. On examination of the Vehicle, the Mechanic informed the Complainant that there was a manufacturing defect in the Vehicle which could not be rectified permanently. It was not a new Vehicle. Earlier, the Vehicle was sold to some other person and when he failed to repay the loan installments, the Vehicle was repossessed and sold to the Complainant. However, the defect was cured by the said Mechanic. Subsequently, when the Complainant was coming to the Show Room of the Dealer, the hub was again broken and it was got replaced by the Dealer with a bigger size of hub then the actual size of broken hub. Complainant alleged that due to repeated defects in the Vehicle he suffered a huge loss and could not pay the installment of the loans on due dates. It is further averred by the Complainant that because of delay of one month in payment of an installment, the HDFC forcibly repossessed the Vehicle without issuing any notice to him. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum.

4. The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties by filing their separate Written Statements. In its Written Version, the Dealer denied the allegation of giving an old vehicle to the Complainant in place of a new one. It was pleaded that if it would have been an old vehicle, the Original Registration No. CG - 10A - 7054 could not have been issued in the name of Complainant and the Registration ought to had been in some other's name. It was further urged that there was no manufacturing defect in the Ve