MANAGER, SUMITRA D. S. MOTORS Vs. RAJIV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') assails the order in appeal no. 1831 of 2012 dtd. 12/1/2014 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') (incorrectly mentioned as appeal no. 1701 of 2010 in the petition) arising out of order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Lakhimpur Kheri in CC no. 20 of 2011 dtd. 10/4/2011.

(2.) The facts of this case being similar to RP No. 2107 of 2016, this order will also dispose of RP no. 2107 of 2016. The facts of the case are taken from RP no. 1234 of 2014.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that in October 2010, the wife of the respondent/ complainant booked a Maruti EECO Car (Model 7 STR) with the petitioner/ opposite party no.1. The delivery was taken on 22/10/2010 by her husband (respondent no.1) and LPG Cylinder Kit was installed on 16/12/2010. The petitioner states that the respondent was paid Rs.38,000.00 in cash on 26/10/2010 towards registration, insurance and installation of LPG Gas Kit. Registration was done on 14/10/2020 at the RTO Shahajahanpur, UP and LPG Gas Kit was installed on 16/12/2016. On 12/11/2010 a legal notice was sent by Mrs Meena Gupta to the petitioner/ opposite party no.1 (Sumitra Motors) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice seeking refund of Rs.1426.00 and Rs.15,000.00 for loss of business at Rs.1000.00 per day since the vehicle had been purchased for commercial purpose and could not run for want of registration, insurance and Gas Kit. The first free service of the car was availed on 13/11/2010 when mileage recorded was 1120 km. The second free service was availed on 22/12/2010 with mileage recorded as 5200 km. On both the occasions no manufacturing defect was brought to the notice by the respondent. On 21/4/2011 the vehicle was taken for check-up camp to Concept Car Pvt., Ltd., Lucknow Road, Sitapur when it had covered 52,563 kms. No manufacturing defect was brought out during the check-up. On 5/8/2011 the tyres and tubes of the said vehicle were changed at Rajender Corporation at Lakhimpur Kheri. On 18/11/2011, the respondent/ complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle and filed a consumer complaint no.20 of 2011 on 12/12/2011 before the District Forum. It is contended that in this complaint a new prayer was inserted without notice to the petitioner/ opposite party and 30/1/2012 and the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioner.