ORDER

RP/1529/2022

For the Petitioner(s)             : Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwai, Advocate    

For the Respondent(s)         :  Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Advocate for R-1

                                                 Mr. T.K. Ganju, Senior Advocate for R-2

                                                 Mr. Aquib Ali, Advocate

                                                  Mr. Anish Lakhan Pal, Advocate

RP/1614/2022

For the Petitioner                    : Mr. T. K. Ganju, Senior Advocate

                                                  Mr. Aquib Ali, Advocate

                                                  Mr. Anish Lakhan Pal, Advocate

For the Respondents               : Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Advocate

                                                 Mr. Manish Tiwari, Advocate

                                                 Ms. Thashmitta M., Advocate

                                                 Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Advocate for R-2 & R-3

ORDER

1.       The two present Revision Petitions (RPs) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the common order dated 31.05.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeals (FAs) No. 176/2019 & 309/2019 in which order dated 02.01.2019, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 235/2016 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission and District Commission.

2.   In RP/1529/2022, the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OP-2 & OP-3) were Appellants-1 & 2 in FA/176/2019; Respondents-2 & 3 in FA/309/2019 before the State Commission and Respondents-2 & 3 before the District Commission. In RP/1614/2022, the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1) was Respondent-2 in FA/176/2019; Appellant in FA/309/2019 before the State Commission and Respondent-1 before the District Commission. The Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent-1 before the State Commission in both the Appeals and Complainant before the District Commission.

The RP/1529/2022 has been filed by OP-2 & 3 against complainant and OP-1 and RP/1614/2022 has been filed by OP-1 against Complainant and OP-2 & OP-3 arising out of the common order dated 31.05.2022 of the State Commission in FAs FA/176/2019 and FA/309/2019. As common issues are involved, in the two cases, they are taken up together. However, RP No. 1529/2022 is taken as lead case for presenting facts.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s). Delay in filing RP/1614/2022 is condoned after considering the reasons stated in condonation of delay application (IA/11495/2022). Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 18.08.2023 (OP-1); 22.08.2023 (Complainant) and 23.08.2023 (OP-2 & OP-3) respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as claimed by the complainant, and as emerged from other case records are that:-

The Complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Celerio VDI with registration number KA-19-MF-7715 on 11.11.2015, from OP-1, which is the manufacturer of the vehicle. This purchase was made through OP-3, who is an authorized dealer of OP-1. Additionally, OP-2 also holds authorization as a dealer of OP-1's vehicles. Immediately after purchasing the vehicle, the Complainant noticed irregularities in the engine, characterized by uneven and rough sounds. This issue was reported to OP-3, who assured the Complainant that it would be addressed during the first free service. However, despite this assurance, OP-3 failed to identify the cause of the engine issue or repair it. On 24.04.2016, when the Complainant attempted to start the vehicle, the engine failed to start despite multiple attempts. This was reported to OP-3, who sent mechanics to address the issue, but they also failed to start th