BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.SC/27/A/24/231 (Arisen out of order dated 26/02/2024 passed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/21/157 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raigad -Alibag)

KIA BHAVNA WHEELS , Through its Proprietor Rajesh Shaha, Nerul, Plot no. 49, Plot no 1, Near LP Bridge, Nerul (East), Mumbai – 400706. ........Appellant (Org. Opposite Party no. 2)

V/s.

Sachin Gajanand Patil, R/at – New Posari, Mohpada, Post – Mohpada, Tal. Khalapur, Dist. Raigad. .......Respondent/

(Original Complainant)

AND FIRST APPEAL NO.SC/27/A/24/607 (Arisen out of order dated 26/02/2024 passed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/21/157 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raigad -Alibag)

KIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Having Reg Office at – NH-44, S.Y. No.151-2, Erramanchi Penkonda Mandal, Anantapur – 515164.

Andhra Pradesh India Also at – 17th floor, Two Horizon Centre, GLOF, Course Road, DLC Phase -5 , Sector 43 Gurugra ........Appellant (Org. Opposite Party no. 1)

V/s.

Sachin Gajanand Patil, R/at – New Posari, Mohpada, Post – Mohpada, Tal. Khalapur, Dist. Raigad. .......Respondent/

(Original Complainant)

BEFORE:

Justice S.P. Tavade, President Vijay C. Premchandani, Judicial Member (In FA/24/231)

For Appellant : Adv. Sajira Jondhalr i/b Adv Wavikar For Respondent : Adv. Ajay Pawar (In FA/24/607)

Adv. Pushkal Mishra a/w Devendra Avhad For Respondent : Adv. Ajay Pawar

FINAL ORDER

(Dt. 12^th February, 2026)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in Consumer Complaint no. CC/21/157 by the Ld. District Consumer Commission Raigad-Alibag on 26/02/2024 the Original Opposite Parties nos. 1 & 2 have preferred the separate Appeal. Both the appellants have challenged this order passed against them. Therefore, both the appeals are taken for decision jointly. The parties to this appeal shall be herein after called and referred to as per their status in the original consumer complaint. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under :-

2. The Complainant is resident of Mohopada, Tal, Khalapur, District Raigad. On 27/02/2021he purchased a car known as “KIA-SONET” manufactured by Opposite Party no. 1 for Rs. 12,61,958/-. The Opposite Party no. 2 is the dealer of Opposite Party no. 1. The Complainant had taken loan of Rs. 10,01,500/- from ICICI Bank. It was contended that, the Complainant took possession of the vehicle on 01/03/2021 and he proceeded to his village, the car was stopped for many times due to overheating of engine. The Complainant informed the said fact to the employee of Opposite Party no. 2 viz. Sammati Ingle and Jitu Kumawat. The Complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of Opposite Party no. 2. It was examined by the expert and asked the Complainant to take the vehicle. Accordingly the Complainant took the vehicle to his house but on the way the vehicle was stopped by overheating. The Complainant told the said fact to the employee of Opposite Party who took the vehicle to the workshop on 03/03/2021 and since then the vehicle is in the possession of Opposite Party no. 2.

3. It was contended that the car purchased by the Complainant have manufacturing defect. The engineers of Opposite Party no. 2 tried to rectify the defect but it was not rectified. It was contended that as the car was having manufacturing defect therefore Opposite Party no 1 & 2 are responsible for the same. Therefore the Complainant has prayed for replacement of the car or refund of the amount. The said request was rejected by the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint was filed by the Complainant. Notice was served on Opposite Parties. They appeared and filed written statement.

4. It was contended by the Opposite Party no 1 that it is the manufacturer of the car. It had agreement with Opposite Party no. 2 on Principle to Principle basis and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was contended that the experts of Opposite Party no.