RAJEEV AGRAHARI Vs. SOCIETY MOTORS LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Complainant against a common order, dated 29.01.2009, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission"), in First Appeals No. 454, 394 and 134 of 2006. By the impugned order, while allowing the Appeals preferred by Opposite Party No.1, i.e. the Dealer, and Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3, the Manufacturer of the subject vehicle and partly allowing the third Appeal preferred by the Complainant, the State Commission has directed the Dealer to remove the alleged manufacturing defect of mixing of engine oil with diesel, free of cost.

(2.) The aforesaid three Appeals came to be filed against the order, dated 03.01.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Kanpur Nagar (for short "the District Forum"), whereby it had directed the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to take back the vehicle from the Complainant and refund an amount of Rs. 3,76,467/-, being the cost of the vehicle, along with Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses, within a period of two months from the date of that order. In default, the said amount was to carry simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the Complaint, i.e. 29.09.2003 till realization.

(3.) On 29.01.2001, the Complainant had purchased a new "Tata Spacio SUV" passenger vehicle, costing Rs. 3,76,467/-, by raising loan from Opposite Party No.4. The vehicle carried a 3 year warranty, under which the defective parts were to be replaced free of cost. Within a period of about two months of the purchase of the vehicle, the Complainant realized that it was: (i) returning poor average of diesel consumption of about 7-8 km per litre; (ii) emitting excessive smoke; (iii) creating more sound in comparison to other similar vehicles; and (iv) there was leakage outside the fuel pump. On 29.03.2001, the Complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of the Dealer, who assured the Complainant that after the first service, it would be trouble free. Though during the period from 29.03.2001 to 10.10.2002, the vehicle was taken to the workshop 13 times and remained in the workshop for repairs for a number of days ranging from 1 to 9 days, the main problem of mixing of diesel with mobile oil was not rectified. Fed up with repeated visits to the workshop, vide letter dated 08.09.2001, the Complainant requested the manufacturer to have the engine/pump replaced and remove other defects in the vehicle at its cost and also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as financial loss suffered by him in the last eight months. Perhaps at the direction of the manufacturer, the dealer got the vehicle collected for repairs on 15.09.2001. The dealer having failed to rectify the defect and responding to the Complainant's persistent complaints, the manufacturer informed him that they have asked one Kailash Motors Service Station, Kanpur to look into the matter and resolve all complaints. On 14.03.2002, the Supervisor of the said Kailash Motors collected the vehicle for repairs. While taking delivery, the Supervisor had appended the following comments on the receipt letter: