Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member

          Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) is to the order dated 21.11.2013, passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, “the State Commission”), whereby the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by Fiat India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Manufacturer”) modifying the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Warangal (in short “the District Forum”)  and directed Autofin Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Dealer”) and Select Motors (hereinafter referred to as “the Service Centre”) to check and repair the car  and deliver the same in the roadworthy condition to the  Complainant.

2.       The facts in brief are that one Mr. Y. Kanti Narayan, purchased a FIAT Palio Stile SDE BS II (DIESEL) Car registered as AP 09BQ 2928. The Complainant purchased the said car from Y. Kanti Narayan on 25.11.2009 and the ownership of the car was transferred to the Complainants name. It is averred that at the time of purchase of the Car, the Manufacturer offered 18 months warranty on the workmanship of the car and engine which includes any manufacturing defects. It is submitted that after purchasing the car, the Complainant observed some defects with respect to clutch and gear box. The movement of the clutch pedal was quite hard and the gears were slipping. On 03.12.2009, the Complainant took the car to the Dealer to rectify the defects, the Dealer accepted the warranty period and issued a job card dated 03.12.2009 and made an effort to rectify the defects, but only clutch problem was solved to some extent. Even after the repairs the same problem persisted, resultantly the Complainant had to take his car to the Dealer four times but the defects could not be rectified. It is averred that the workers of the Dealer informed the Complainant that despite their best efforts they could not make good the defects and an endorsement was made on the job card that the vehicle was handed over to the Complainant without solving the gear box problem. It is further averred that though the Complainant had brought these defects to the notice of the Manufacturer, it did not heed to the problems faced by the Complainant. As the Dealer has severed its contract with the Manufacturer, it stopped servicing the vehicle manufactured by the Manufacturer, therefore the Manufacturer advised the Complainant to approach the Service Centre, a newly appointed third Opposite Party (Service Center). Thereafter, the Complainant took his car to the Service Center for repairs on 29.03.2011, the Service Center kept the car for 38 days and had handed over the car to the Complainant on 05.05.2011 saying that the gear box of the car had been repaired.

3.       It is submitted that after taking delivery of the car, the Complainant hardly drove 100 kilometers, the engine of the car was ceased and the Complainant informed the third Opposite Party about the same and handed over the car to it for repairs on 16.05.2011.