ROHIT MUKHERJEE Vs. CHANCHAL BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act') has been filed against the order dated 20.03.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (for short "the State Commission"?) in Appeal No.431 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 M/s Indian Auto Machineries (hereinafter called as "the dealer"?) against the order dated 17.09.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muzaffarpur (for short "the District Forum"?) in Complaint No.224 of 2001 of the Respondent no.1 (hereinafter called as "the Complainant"?).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that after taking loan from Respondent No.3, the Complainant had purchased a three wheeler scooter called Vikram 450'D for his livelihood through the dealer who is the authorised agent of the Petitioner. The vehicle was found defective within a month of purchase. He asked the dealer to repair the vehicle but it was not fully repaired and thereafter, he asked for change of the vehicle which was not done. The Complaint was thereafter filed by him.

(3.) The dealer filed its written version before the District Forum. The Petitioner attended the proceedings before the District Forum but did not file any reply and therefore did not contest the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant and the dealer submitted their evidences before the District Forum.