O RDE R

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal is filed against order dated 27.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2012/249 whereby the complaint was partly allowed with direction to the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 the seller and manufacturer of the vehicle in question respectively to pay within 45 days Rs.1,27,000/- (One Lac Twenty Seven Thousand) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint 17.07.2012. Compensation towards financial loss suffered by the complainant/ respondent No.1 herein Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) and Rs.6,438/- (Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Eight) along with cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) including advocate fees were also directed to be paid.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 25.02.2012 the complainant / respondent No.1 purchased a vehicle ‘Ape Truk Plus 4 S’ from the opposite party No.1/ appellant, for the purpose of earning his livelihood, which was manufactured by the opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2. Guarantee and warranty of one year till 24.02.2013 was provided by the opposite parties. As alleged in the complaint, the vehicle started breaking down right from the very beginning. The vehicle was brought to the service centre on 19.03.2012 and had to be left with opposite party No.1/appellant for 10 days. Thereafter, on 31.03.2012, 10.04.2012, 08.06.2012 and 19.06.2012 the vehicle had to be brought to the service centre for different problems every time. On 19.06.2012 the vehicle had to be left with opposite party No.1/appellant for 20 days, wherein there were complaints of starting problem, excessive smoke emission and the battery was also found to be old. During warranty period bills were also raised by the opposite parties and were paid by the complainant/ respondent No.1. Again the vehicle was brought to the service center with the complaint of starting problem which was repaired But the car broke down again after driving for just 1 kilometre and had to be pushed up to the service centre again. The complainant/ respondent No.1 was asked to come after a week for taking the vehicle but when after one week the complainant/ respondent No.1 went to take the vehicle it was informed that the same has been sold for Rs.2,50,000/- to someone else. Hence, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking reliefs sought in the complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1/ appellant in their written version except the admitted facts denied all the adverse allegations leveled against them and averred that the vehicle in question was purchased for commercial purpose and after taking objection to that effect, the complainant/ respondent No.1 has amended his complaint with his afterthought. Warranty of one year was provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle as per the warranty policy mentioned in the manual provided at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The vehicle was provided to the complainant/ respondent No.1 on 06.02.2012 and thereafter it came to the service center for repairing and general maintenance. During repairing parts were changed under warranty and without obtaining any amount from the complainant/ respondent No.1 the vehicle was given to him. The complainant/ respondent No.1 himself left the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite party No.1/ appellant at Balodabazar and thereafter he did not come to take the vehicle. As per RTO record still the vehicle is in his name. It was also averred that the complainant/ respondent No.1 has alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle but manufacturer has not been made party in the case. With the above averments it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

4. The opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 did not appear before the District Commission even after proper service of notice and did not file any written ve