DAYA ANIL MOTORS Vs. MUKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') against the order dtd. 25/1/2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 90 of 2012.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant had purchased a three wheeler scooter (Vikram 410 G make) bearing registration number DL-1 LH-2898 from the petitioner in November 2006 for a price of Rs.1,45,108.00 excluding insurance charges. The complainant paid Rs.35,000.00 and Rs.95,150.00 was financed by respondent no. 2. The balance of Rs.14,958.00 was to be paid by the respondent no. 1 by 2/1/2007. On 2/1/2007 the respondent no.1 issued a cheque of Rs.11,658.00 towards the balance amount and left the three wheeler in the premises of the petitioner. He then filed a consumer complaint (No. 78 of 2007) in the District Forum, Faridabad alleging that the three wheeler purchased by him had developed serious manufacturing defect and had become unfit for plying on 5/11/2006 and thereafter again on 20/11/2006. It was alleged that the respondent refused to replace the said vehicle even though it was within the guarantee period. The petitioner in his reply contended that the respondent no.1 had not paid the full price of the vehicle as the cheque of Rs.11,658.00 was dishonoured and there was no manufacturing defect as no complaint had been made by the respondent on this account. It was submitted that the vehicle had been abandoned at the premises of the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 as he was an employee of the IDBI Bank and because the contract with the company for engaging the three wheeler had been terminated. The vehicle had been taken possession of by the respondent no.2 as the financier and it was he who delivered the vehicle to a third party who paid the balance loan installments. It was also contended that as the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, the Act was not applicable.

(3.) In consumer complaint no.78 of 2007 filed by respondent no.1, the District Forum, Faridabad passed the following order on 19/10/2011: