J*

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 391 OF 2025 (F rom the order dated 04.08.2023 in F A N o. 786 of 2015 of the S tate C onsum er D isputes R edressal C om m ission K arnataka)

W ith IA / 2667-69 of 2025 ( directions, stay, c/d)

1. M /s. L.M . P rem ier (A D ivision of L.M . M otors), N .H . 17, H eroor, O pp. S ugar Factory, B raham var, U dupi - 576 213 P etitioner (s)

V e rsus

1 .J. S uresh S /o Jaganatah R ao, K eshava m ane, H aniya P ost, H osanagara T aluk, S him oga

2. M /s. P rem ier Lim ited, C orporate O ffice: 58, N arim an B havan, N arim an P oint, M um bai-400 021 R egistered O ffice: M um bai - P oona R oad, C hinchw ada, P une-411 019 R espondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER F or the P etitioner(s) M r. A shok B annidinni, A dvocate (V .C )

M r. B etsara M ylliem ngap, A dvocate F or the R espondent(s) M r. N ihant P anicker, A dvocate &

M s. S akina A liasgar, A dvocate for R -1 N one for R -2 Dated 19.02.2026 :

ORDER

1.

H eard counsel for both sides.

2.

R P has been filed w ith a delay of 465 days as per calculations m ade by the R egistry. A n application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in w hich the period of delay m entioned is 556 days. T he m ain reason stated in the said application is that the petitioner could not obtain the papers from their advocate due to shifting of the office, and by the tim e the sam e w as traced and sent, it has resulted in delay. W hen this m atter w as taken up on 17.03.2025, the petitioner contended that they have earlier e-filed the R P during 2023. A ccordingly, the R egistry w as directed to check w hether any such R P has been filed earlier as claim ed and w hether it w as a substantially defect free R P . H ow ever, the R egistry, vide its report dated 03.04.2025, stated that there is nothing available on record that this petition w as filed in the year 2023 as claim ed by the counsel for the petitioner, and the sam e w as confirm ed from the listing section also. H ow ever, on 17.04.2025, the petitioner reiterated that he did e-file the revision petition during 2023 and even given any specific num ber. A ccordingly, he w as granted tim e to place on record som e reasonable evidence in this regard. T hereafter, the R egistry reported that an application reverted in scrutiny stage exists bearing filing reference no.110000007232, w hose filing dated 26.04.2024.

3. In view of the forgoing, giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, the delay in filing the R P is condoned and the m atter is taken up on m erits.

4. T he challenge is to the com m on order dated 04.08.2023 of the S tate C om m ission, vide w hich 3 appeals w ere filed, appeal no.786 of 2015 by the petitioner herein, w ho is the dealer, appeal no.978 of 2015 by the m anufacturer (M /s P rem ier Ltd.) and appeal no.885 of 2015 by the com plainant (R -1 herein). W hile appeal no.786 of 2015 and 978 of 2015 filed by the dealer and the m anufacturer w ere dism issed, and the appeal no.885 of 2015 filed by the com plainant w as allow ed and the order o f the D istrict C om m ission w as m odified. E arlier, the D istrict C om m ission has allow ed the com plaint w ith the follow ing directions:

“The complaint filed by the complainant u/sec. 12 of •

the Consumer Protection Act against OPs 1 and 2 is allowed in part.

• The OPs 1 and 2 are hereby directed to effect all necessary repairs and jointly make an endeavour to remove all the defects in the vehicle and deliver the same to the complainant in a perfect roadworthy condition within a period of 2 months from today. While delivering vehicle a clear-cut certificate issued by a Senior Officer of the OP1 company not below the rank of a General Manager declaring in categorical terms that the vehicle is free from any defects shall also be given along with fresh warranty and up to date paid road tax and insurance.

Or in the alternative in the event