SMT. M. SREESHA, MEMBER

1.       Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the common order dated 15-12-2015 passed by Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Dehradun (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal Nos.105, 160 and 177 of 2013 preferred by M/s. Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Dealer’), Director, Hindustan Motors Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Manufacturer’) and Ms. Nuzhat Ashfaq Ali, the Petitioner herein.

2.       By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeals preferred by the Dealer and the Manufacturer and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (in short, ‘the District Forum’), thereby dismissing Complaint No.333 of 2008, preferred by the Revision Petitioner.

3.       Facts in brief are that the Petitioner purchased an Ambassador 1500 DSL ACE II car for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- on 25-04-2008. It is averred that when the vehicle was used, it was found that the pickup was low and there was a sound in the engine. The Petitioner informed the authorized Dealer about the defects in the car and was assured that the problem would be solved at the time of the next service. On 24-06-2008, when the vehicle went for service, the Dealer was informed about the manufacturing defects like low pickup, engine noise, the doors which were not set properly and some meandering from the wheel. It is averred that once again the Petitioner was informed that the problem would be solved by the next service. On 30-06-2008, the Dealer replaced some parts for which an amount of Rs.724.50/- was charged but the defects were not rectified. Once again, the Petitioner requested to replace the said vehicle which was under guarantee period but there was no response. On 07-10-2008, the Petitioner got issued a notice to the Opposite Parties seeking replacement of the vehicle together with compensation and costs and subsequently filed a Complaint before the District Forum.

4.       The Dealer filed their Written Version denying all the allegations and stating that the Petitioner had complained of low pickup and some other defects which were repaired and the Petitioner had taken back her vehicle after full satisfaction. The Dealer had checked the vehicle under Job Card No.2597 and repaired all the defects to the satisfaction of the Petitioner. Once again on 24-06-2008 all the defects were rectified. On 28-06-2008, vide Job Card No.3113, the vehicle’s clutch plate system was checked and the clutch plate, pressure plate, etc., of the vehicle were replaced under warranty. It is averred that the Dealer does not have the authority to replace the car and hence only those parts of the vehicle were changed which were under warranty to the satisfaction of the Petitioner. It was denied that the Dealer did not attend to the problem pointed out by the Petitioner. The wheel alignment was done on 29-08-2008, 4.5 litres of engine oil and oil filter was replaced during the third service which did not come under warranty and, hence, payment was taken. I