ORDER

1.      Heard Md. Zaryab J. Rizvi, Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Meenakshi S. Devgan, Advocate for respondent No.1. None appeared on behalf of respondents 2 & 3.

2.      The above appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Complaint No.197 of 2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.

3.      Nigar Usmani (appellant herein) filed Consumer Complaint No.197 of 2013 with the State Commission to direct the opposite parties to (1) change the vehicle in question with a new vehicle or refund the amount of Rs.21 lakh with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase; (2) Rs.15 lakh towards the financial loss and mental agony; (3) waive the interest on the loan amount till new vehicle is made available; (4) pay litigation cost of Rs.20000/-; and (5) any other relief which Hon’ble Commission may deem proper.

5.      Nigar Usmani (the complainant) purchased a vehicle Mahindra Rexton R 270 XVT-RX7 for a sum of Rs.21 lakh from opposite party No.2 (respondent No.2) for her personal use on 08.03.2013. The complainant took a loan of Rs.16 lakh from Bank of Baroda for purchasing the vehicle. The vehicle was having a warranty for one year. During the warranty period, the horn and the music system stopped working properly. After running the vehicle for 8100 km. the clutch plate was damaged. The vehicle was taken to Narain Auto Service Centre (respondent No.3) but the defects could not be removed due to which the vehicle was taken to the service centre again and again. The employees of the service centre told the complainant that there was manufacturing  defect in the vehicle due to which the clutch plate was giving problem again and again. On 15.11.2013, while the complainant was driving the vehicle, its clutch plate burnt resulting in hitting the side of the road and damage to the vehicle. On 18.11.2013, the complainant took the vehicle to Narain Service Centre. Due to repeated defects in the vehicle, it was proved that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect. The complainant was a business woman and due to repeated defects in her vehicle, her business activities were badly affected. The complainant suffered physical and mental harassment due to defective vehicle. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the consumer complaint with the State Commission.

6.      Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their separate written statements. Opposite party No.1 stated that it was the manufacturer of the vehicle and sold the vehicle to opposite party No.2 for onward sale. The complainant purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.2 and there was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1. The complaint qua opposite party No.1 was not maintainable. There is no evidence to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The problem of horn and the music system were rectified during the warranty period. The complainant made complaint about the clutch plate for the first time on 28.04.2013 when the vehicle had already run for 8315 kms. The second complaint about the clutch plate was made on 19.11.2013, by which time the vehicle had run for 33393 kms. The clutch problem, if any, was due to wrong driving of the vehicle. The complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. Therefore, she was not a consumer.

          Opposite party No.2 contested the complaint stating that it was a registered seller of opposite party No.1. Whenever the complainant visited opposite party No.2, it rectified the problem in the vehicle. The complaint alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the complaint it is alleged that opposite parties 1 & 2 were aware of the manufacturing defects in the vehicle, still they sold the defective vehicle to the complainant. If there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the co