ORDER

DR. INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER

1.       The present Revision Petitions have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the common order dated 21.03.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 719 and 486 of 2014 in which order dated 09.04.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Qutub Industrial Area (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 1039 of 2005 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 21.03.2022 of the State Commission.

2.       Notice was issued to the Respondents.  Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 10.07.2024 and respondent no.1 filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on  18.07.2024 respectively.

3.       Brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that on 14.05.2004, Complainant, namely, Harpreet Singh purchased a new Car make TATA Indica V2 for a sum of Rs.3,71,418/- manufactured by Tata Motors ( hereinafter referred to as OP No.1) through its dealer Sanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as OP No.2).  The warranty provided on the said vehicle was for 18 months and extended warranty was for 3 years from the date of its purchase.  The car was covered for any manufacturing or workmanship defects by the manufacturer.  It is the case of the Complainant that since the day of purchase, it started giving problem.  Complainant reported the matter to OP No.2 just after a week of the purchase.  The vehicle was left at the service station but the defects pointed out by the Complainant like faulty shock absorber, low mileage, poor pick up with AC engine etc were  not rectified.  Complainant took the vehicle at the service station on 13.07.2004, 04.08.2004, 12.10.2004, 16.03.2005, 20.07.2005, 15.09.2005 and 04.10.2008 for the removal of said defects but inspite of changing / replacing the parts, the defects still persisted.  It is further the case of the complainant that though the vehicle was under warranty period, yet OP No.2 demanded money and complainant paid the amount as per bills. 

4.       Further, on 15.09.2005, when the vehicle was left with OP No.2, its engineer while driving the same ( test drive ) met with an accident with a truck, resulting a lot of damage to his car.  Complainant took photographs of the accidental vehicle.  He sent letters / emails to OP No.2 requesting it to repair the vehicle but OP No.2 failed to rectify the defects.  On 24.02.2006, complainant got his vehicle inspected through Mechanical Automobile Engineer and after thoroughly inspection of his vehicle, opined that vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect.  Even the pollution level of the vehicle was so excessive that he was unable to get the pollution certificate from the authority concerned.  Being aggrieved, the  Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 09.04.2014 directed both the OPs to refund the entire cost of the vehicle and to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and complainant shall return the used / defective vehicle to the OPs on receipt of payment from the OPs.   Being aggrieved,  both the OPs i.e. OP No.2 ( Sanya Automobiles ) filed FA No. 719 of 2014 before the State Commission and OP No.1 ( Tata Motors ) filed FA No. 486 of 2014 before the State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 21.03.2022 held the manufacturer ( Tata Motors / OP No.1) liable for payment of the whole decretal amount.  State Commission absolved OP No.2 for any liability.  Hence, the Petitioner ( Tata Motors ) is before this Commission now in the present RPs.   

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 21.03.2022 of the State Commission mainly o