STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

M/s Kulja Industries Limited, Plot No. 1, Industrial Estate, Chambaghat, Solan 173213, through its Managing Director Sh. Bhawani Dutt

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus

1.     The General Manager (Complaints), Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. A-I/1, M.I.D.C. Five Star, Industrial Area, Shendra, Aurangabad-431201.

2.       M/s Krishna Auto Sales, 177-E, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002, through its Authorized Representative.

                                …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:

Sh.Aditya Sharda, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.09.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No. 159 of 2014, filed by the complainant, being barred by limitation.

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a vehicle i.e. Skoda Superb from the Opposite Parties, which was subsequently allotted registration No.HP-14A-0065 from Registering Authority, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The said vehicle developed a manufacturing defect and, as such, it was taken to the workshop of the Opposite Parties, a number of times for rectification of the problem of steering oil leakage and air conditioner in the said vehicle but nothing had been done and the problem is still subsisting, as a result of which, the complainant was unable to ply the said vehicle. It was stated that the driver of the complainant brought the aforesaid vehicle in the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 on 09.06.2012 for the repair of air conditioner and steering oil pipe vide job card No.068643 but the pipe required for the repair of the air conditioner was not available in its stock. However, Opposite Party No.2 replaced the steering oil pipe and charged an amount of Rs.1690/- for the same vide invoice dated 12.06.2012 but the said problem remained as it is and, as such, the vehicle was again sent to the service station of Opposite Party No.2 on 13.06.2012 who gave the tentative estimate of Rs.50,000/- for its repair. It was further stated that the vehicle of the complainant remained in the service station of the Opposite Parties on account of non-availability of the spare parts required for repair of the said vehicle. It was averred that the Opposite Parties were requested to rectify the defects, in the said vehicle, or if the same were beyond repairs, to replace the same (vehicle), with a new one, but to no avail. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure C-8) to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  Therefore, the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.2, stated that the complaint was barred by time. It was pleaded that the Forum had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that since the vehicle, in question, was purchased by the Company, meaning thereby for commercial use, the consumer complaint was not maintainable. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, in question. According to Opposite Party No.2, the complainant was asked a number of