SUNIL KUMAR Vs. M/S. SHIMLA AUTO ZONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under Sec. 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dtd. 26/11/2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 248 of 2018 in which order dtd. 9/8/2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 28 of 2017 was challenged, inter alia praying to revise, quash and set aside the order dtd. 26/11/2019 passed by the State Commission, in First Appeal No. 248 of 2018.

(2.) While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Petitioner or Complainant) was Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1 and OP-2) were Appellant and Respondent No.2 respectively in the said FA 248/2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondent(s) were OPs before the District Commission in the CC no 28 of 2017. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 26/2/2021. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 11/11/2021 (Petitioner), 30/6/2023 (Respondent No.1) and 18/10/2021 (Respondent No.2) respectively.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that the complainant purchased a vehicle with registration No. HP-38E-0819 from OP-1 on 9/6/2016, intending to use it for self-employment and earn a livelihood. However, on 11/8/2016, when the vehicle had covered a distance of 15050 KM from the date of purchase, a sudden defect occurred. The complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-1 and took the vehicle to their workshop for repair. After the defect was rectified, the vehicle was returned to the complainant by OP-1. It was pleaded that thereafter again on 22/11/2016, when vehicle had covered 16781 KM, a defect occurred in vehicle in question and its engine including accelerator stopped working properly and matter was reported to OP-1 on the same day, but they could not rectify the defect. The vehicle in question is still lying parked in the workshop of OP-1. The complainant contends that the defect was a result of a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that the OPs are responsible for the deficiency in service. Consequently, the complainant sought relief in the form of a direction to the OPs to either replace the vehicle with a new one or refund the entire consideration amount. It is also alleged that during the pendency of proceedings before the District Commission, OP-1 allowed the said vehicle to be taken by the financer of the vehicle Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.