RADHA GARDENS Vs. VOLKSWAGEN INDIA (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 203/2012 M/s. Radha Gardens & Ors. Vs. Volkswagen India (P) Ltd. & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner booked Polo Car Diesel version on 21.4.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the OP/respondent. Complainant wanted Pepper Grey colour car, but was compelled to accept black colour car. On 9.7.2010, car was delivered to the complainant and on the same day, he found sound in the engine. Later on also he found problems in the vehicle. OP examined car and informed complainant that it was a minor problem and asked him to leave the car at workshop. Even after 3 days car was not repaired. In such circumstances, complainant got notice issued to the OPs. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 & 2 /Respondent No. 1 & 2, who are manufacturers of the car resisted complaint and submitted that there was no privity of contract between OP and complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 & 4/Respondent No. 3 & 4 admitted sale of car, but denied any manufacturing defect in the car and submitted that problem of engine sound was sorted out immediately and complainant was asked to take delivery of the vehicle, but he refused to take the delivery and wanted replacement of the car. It was further stated that OP No. 4 offered a courtesy car to the complainants during the time vehicle kept for inspection. It was further submitted that as a matter of goodwill, OP No. 4 agreed to replace the car with pepper grey colour car with extended period for further two years and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 5 to 10 did not appear before District forum. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and directed OP No.1 to 4 to replace the car with cost of 5,000/-. Complainant filed this revision petition for refund of price along with application for condonation of delay.

(3.) Respondent No. 5 to 10 were deleted.