1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 26.03.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ( ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. FA/2016/26 & FA/2016/33, wherein the Appeals filed by the Respondents/ OPs was partly allowed and setting aside the Order dated 07.01.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 332/2013.

2.      There was 93 days delay in filing the Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA No. 9603/2016, the delay is condoned.

3.      For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      Brief relevant facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant purchased a new vehicle - ‘Dost LS BSLLL FSD Light Blue’, Regn No. CG-07-ACA-6397 from OP-2 who is an authorized agent/dealer of OP-1, the manufacturer, on 23.01.2012 for Rs.5,20,000/-. To finance this, he arranged funds by mortgaging personal assets, including a loan from M/s. Shree Ram Transport Finance and jewelry from 'Naveen Jewelers'. However, from the outset, the vehicle had following various manufacturing defects:

5.      Despite reporting these defects and visiting multiple times for repair, the vehicle issues were not rectified as promised by OP-2. The defects persisted and, notably an apparent wiring issue that remained unaddressed despite being raised as a concern, reducing the vehicle's overall functionality. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint No. 332/2013, seeking either a replacement vehicle or reimbursement of Rs.5,20,000/- with 12% interest per annum, alongside compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental distress, Rs.50,000/- for economic loss, and an additional Rs.20,000/- for unfair trade practices and deficient services.

6.      In the reply, before the learned District Forum, OP-1 contended that the defects in the vehicle were addressed and rectified. The vehicle had in fact met with an accident, which led to the problems and OP-1 disclaimed responsibility for the accidental damages. OP-1 highlighted that during the first servicing, the vehicle had covered 5000 kilometers; and at the second servicing, it had reached 11000 kilometers. OP-1 contended that no complaint regarding oil leakage was raised by the Complainant during these service intervals, as there were no issues or defects noted at that time. OP-1 reiterated readiness to undertake servicing in line with the warranty terms and conditions. The case filed is not sustainable as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes. They supported the plea for dismissal of the complaint by affidavits from Tamal Nandi, Deputy Manager, and Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Senior Technician and other documents. In their reply, OP-2 outlined that the initial servicing of the vehicle was done on 25.12.2012 after it covered 5000 kilometres. At that time, there were no complaints regarding any oil leakage. The issue of oil jamming in the vehicle's oil pipe was rectified by installing a new pipe. The vehicle was taken for subsequent services, including a free servicing and a paid servicing, during which no leakage complaints were reported. Even when the vehicle was brought to their workshop on 17.05.2013 in accidented condition, there were no complaints made regarding manufacturing defects. Due to the accident, the vehicle's engine was impacted. Upon inspection, it was advised that an overhaul was necessary to rectify the engine's condition. Further, OP-2 highlighted termination of dealership with OP-1 vide letter dated 20.06.2013 and that OP-1 would bear sole responsibility for any issues in the vehicle following this termination. OP-2 emphasized that if any compensation is awarded, OP-1 remains solely responsible. Therefore, OP-2 contends that the Complainant isn't entitled to relief from them.

7.      The learned District Forum in its Order dated 07.01.2016, allowed the complaint with the following order:

  “16. Therefore, in view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed and we reach on the conclusion that non-applicants are jointly- and severally are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get a new vehicle in place of his said vehicle or the price of the said vehicle of Rs.5,20,000/- along with interest 'jointly and severally from the non-applicants. Complainant is also entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the non-applicants jointly and severally towards the mental, physical and financial loss caused to him and Rs.10,000/" cost of litigation.”

(Extracted from True Translated Copy)

8.      Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Appellant No.1 (Ashok Leyland) filed two Appeals No. 26/2016 & 33/2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission in its order dated 26.03.2016 allowed both the Appeals and setting aside the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following Order: -

  “18. That the onus to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle was on complainant. The complainant did not initiate any proceedings to get the vehicle inspected under the provisions of Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act and not he had filed report of any Specialist, on contrary to it, the non-applicants have filed the Vehicle Inspection Report and it has been clearly mentioned in this vehicle inspection report that there was no leakage of oil was found in the engine.

19. That the complainant has- completely failed to prove the fact that there was any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and in this event, the complainant is not at all entitled to get a new vehicle or the cost of the vehicle and the order passed by the District Forum that the non-applicants are directed to give a new vehicle or to pay Rs.5,20, 000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Twenty Thousand Only) in place of new vehicle is not liable to be kept as it is.

20. That the appeal filed by non-applicant no.2/G. Auto Plaza bearing Appeal No. FA/2016/26 and Appeal filed by non-applicant no.1 Ashok Leyland bearing Appeal No. FA/2016/33 are hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2016 passed by the District Forum is set aside, as a result of which the complaint is dismissed. Keeping in view the circumstances of the present case, both the parties will bear their respective cost of litigation on their own.”           (Extracted from True Translated Copy)

9.      Dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 26.03.2016 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner/ Complainant has filed the instant Revision Petition bearing nos. 2857-2858 of 2016.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

11.    The core issue at hand pertains to determination of the contention of "manufacturing defects" and the subsequent recurring problem of oil leakage experienced by the Petitioner in the vehicle purchased from the OPs. Despite multiple attempts by the OPs, the alleged issue of oil leakage remained unresolved. Another critical aspect for consideration is whether the Petitioner/Complainant is entitled to either receive a replacement vehicle or reimbursement of the vehicle's value amounting to Rs.5,20,000, along with interest.

12.    The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant argued that despite multiple attempts, the vehicle consistently faced an oil leakage issue, and the efforts by the Respondents/OPs to resolve it proved futile. The vehicle remains in the service center for repair, with the oil leakage problem persisting. As a result, the Petitioner requests the reversal of the State Commission's order and upholding the District Commission's decision. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents /OPs asserted that the complaint lacks merit. He cited the repair order dated 18.01.2014, indicating that the vehicle had covered over 63256 KM by that date and was noted as an accidental case. If any manufacturing defect existed as alleged, the vehicle wouldn't have covered such a distance. Additionally, the absence of documents proving the refilling of oil by the Complainant and any expert evidence to support the claim are conspicuous by absence. In any case, the burden to prove the defects in the vehicle's constitutes a manufacturing defect rested with the Complainant. However, neither any such responsibility was discharged, nor any specialist report was brought on record. In contrast, the Respondents substantiated their position with expert evidence. The technicians appointed by the State Commission viz. Mr. Amit and Mr. Kishore undertook inspection. They refuted any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Their inspection report also found the following: -

* Both side chassis crack present.

* Oil sump gasket oil leakage

* No oil leakage found from engine.

* Engine, Gear Box, Rear Axle are working very fine.

* Loan body got modified by the customer to increase load

  body height against company policy.

* Cross Member found crack.

13.    The aforesaid report is supported by the affidavits of Tamal Nandi, Amit Kumar Sahu and Krishan Kumar Aggarwal. In these circumstances, the conclusion made by the District Forum that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle is untenable.

14.    Upon careful examination of the material on record, the Petitioner/Complainant failed to substantiate the claim of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. It is undisputed that the vehicle had covered 63256 KM as of 18.01.2014. The burden to prove such a defect rested with the Complainant. The State Commission direction to the appointment of technician Mr. Amit and Mr. Kishore has revealed in findings that refute any manufacturing defects. Therefore, no service deficiency is established by the Complainant/Respondent for rendering the OPs of any such liability. 

15.    In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that the Order of the learned State Commission dated 26.03.2016 does not warrant any interference. Consequently, the Revision Petitions No. 2857-2858 of 2016 are dismissed.

16.    There shall be no order as to costs. All other pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.