ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission), Pauri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 32 of 2016 styled as Sh. Dhanesh Kumar Jain vs. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and Ors., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party No. 2 to replace the old car ‘Hyundai Xcent Model S’ with new model ‘Hyundai Xcent SX (O) Petrol Top Model (On-road)’ together with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of judgment and order.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that Opposite Party No. 1 is the manufacturer of Hyundai vehicles, while Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 are its authorized dealer and sales outlet, respectively. According to the complainant, one Sanjay, a representative of Opposite Party No. 3, approached him and persuaded him to purchase a Hyundai Xcent SX(O) Petrol Top Model, assuring him that finance for the vehicle could also be arranged through Mahindra Finance. Acting upon such representation, the complainant booked the said vehicle by paying an advance amount of Rs. 5,000/-. His old Indica car was assessed at Rs. 95,000/- which was to be adjusted towards the sale consideration. Thereafter, he paid a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 09.08.2016 and Rs. 52,000/- on 11.08.2016. The remaining amount was financed through Mahindra Finance. According to the complainant, he was informed on 11.08.2016 that the booked Hyundai Xcent SX(O) Petrol Top Model was ready for delivery and, accordingly, he took delivery of the vehicle after completing the requisite formalities. The complainant further contended that at the time of delivery, Opposite Party No. 3 represented that the vehicle being delivered was the Hyundai Xcent SX(O) Petrol Top Model booked by him. However, after taking the vehicle home, he came to know that the vehicle supplied was not the Hyundai Xcent SX(O) model but a lower variant, namely the Xcent S model. Upon discovering the discrepancy, the complainant immediately approached the representatives of Opposite Party No. 3, who allegedly assured him that the vehicle would be replaced with the top-end model. Despite such assurances and repeated requests, the vehicle was not replaced. The complainant also addressed complaint to Opposite Party No. 1 through e-mail correspondence, but according to him, no effective action was taken. It is further alleged that Opposite Party No. 3, in an attempt to avoid liability, deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with the financing company on his behalf. The complainant has further alleged that he agreed to purchase the vehicle solely on account of the features and specifications available in the Hyundai Xcent SX(O) Petrol Top Model and that the lower variant supplied to him did not meet his requirements. According to him, despite receiving consideration for the top-end model, the opposite parties delivered a lower variant vehicle, thereby committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Aggrieved by the aforesaid acts and omissions of the opposite parties, the complainant instituted the present consumer complaint.

3. Opposite Party No. 1 filed its written statement and contested the complaint by contending that the learned District Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was pleaded that Opposite Party No. 1 is merely the manufacturer of Hyundai vehicles and deals with its authorized dealers on a principal-to-principal basis. Any error, omission or deficiency, if any, in the retail sale or servicing of the vehicle is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. It was further submitted that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No. 1, as the vehicle was sold by opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and the sale consider