BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA Vs. VIKAS AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter be referred as "the Complainant") for setting aside of the order dated 06.07.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.2644 of 2001 filed by the Respondent No.1, M/s Vikas Automobiles, by which the order dated 10.04.2001 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bulandshahar (for short "the District Forum") allowing the Complaint No.609 of 1997 of the Complainant was set aside.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a vehicle from Respondent No.1, Vikas Automobiles on 07.06.1996. The vehicle was manufactured by the Respondent No.2, M/s Shanti Auto Private Limited. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle was brought to Respondent No.1 who is also a sub agent, as the vehicle developed certain defects. Respondent No.1 could not repair the vehicle and sent the vehicle for repair to Delhi to M/s Saraswati Auto. After the repair of the vehicle, it was returned to the Complainant on 07.10.1996.

(3.) The contention of the Complainant in the Complaint was that the vehicle had inherent defects. It is submitted that the vehicle was six seater but the engine installed in the vehicle was of three seater due to which it was unable to take the load and so, he was finding it difficult in using the vehicle. Another contention of the Complainant is that although, the vehicle was under warranty of six months, in September 1996 when it was handed over to the Respondent No.1 for repair, the Respondent No.1 had charged him the expenses incurred on the repair work. He had also contended that even after the repair of the vehicle on 07.10.1996, the vehicle did not work properly and again on 29.12.1996, the defects developed in the engine and after getting 82 M.M. cylinder piston bore, the vehicle was handed over to him. He further contended that he gave notice to the defendants on 27.01.1997 and the defendant no.2 changed the engine in June 1997 but still the vehicle did not work properly because the vehicle was having three seater engine. It developed defects now and then. He had further contended that the vehicle remained out of service since the beginning and it being his only source of income, he had spent Rs.50,000/- in getting the vehicle repaired. He has also stated that on 10.02.1997, he was called for settlement by the Respondent No.1 and was forcibly made to write on some papers and to keep the vehicle outside the showroom. He, thereafter, lodged a Complaint with SSP Bulandshahar but his grievances were not redressed.