PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 23.02.2011 & 25.04.2011 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack in First Appeal Nos. 119 and 286 of 2010 and First Appeal No. 102 of 2011.  The appeals before the State Commission were filed against an order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum Cuttack in complaint case no. 57 of 2006.  The complaint before the District Forum was filed alleging defect in Wagon-R purchased by the complainant from opposite party-M/s Sky Automobiles on 30.12.2002 for a consideration of Rs.4,33,853/-.  However, at the time of second service, body of the car showed rusting and corrosion which the complainant got rectified / repaired at a cost of  Rs.5000/- by putting Anti Corrosive paint.  The said car again continued to show the symptoms of corrosion and, therefore, complainant sought replacement of the car with a new car and damages.  The complaint was earlier answered by the District Forum giving certain directions to the opposite party-dealer against which the dealer filed appeal before the State Commission.  During the pendency of the said appeal, State Commission appointed automobile engineer Shri A.K.Patnaik in order to obtain the report if the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect.  The State Commission also arrayed the manufacturer of the vehicle, namely, Maruti Suzuki India Limited as the party. On receipt of such a report, the State Commission remanded back the matter to the District Forum for deciding the complaint again after taking into consideration the report of the automobile engineer.  The complaint was resisted by the manufacturer and dealer, thereby denying any manufacturing defect.  The District Forum on consideration of the matter and going by the report of the automobile engineer, however, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to replace the car with a new car of the same make and to pay compensation of Rs.25000/-.  The dealer and the manufacturer filed appeal before the State Commission.  Similarly, complainant not being contended also filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the order passed by the District Forum.

2.       Revision Petition No.1869 of 2011 has been filed by the original complainant seeking upgradation of the relief granted to him by the District Forum and approved by the State Commission and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. has filed Revision Petition no. 2461 of 2011 for setting aside the orders passed by the fora below.

3.       We have heard Shri Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel representing petitioner-Dr. Rabi Ranjan Sahu, complainant in Revision Petition no. 1869 of 2011 but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent in this petition and petitioner in Revision Petition No. 2461 of 2011 as none appeared for them at the time of hearing of the revision petitions despite due notice of today’s hearing.

4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that compensation awarded to the complainant is not adequate inasmuch as the complainant had lost stereo recorder worth Rs.12000/- which was installed in the car and besides that he had to incur expenditure on account of payment of fees to the expert and for prosecuting the matter.  In our view, the complainant was not well advised to challenge the order passed by the fora below through these proceedings which are primarily in nature of supervisory jurisdiction and scope being limited to correct the illegality or any jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the fora below.  In our view, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the complainant could not have been granted any better relief than what he has been granted in the present case.  We, therefore see no merit in the revision petition no. 1869 of 2011 and  the said revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 

5.       So far as revision petition no. 2461 of 2011 is concerned, we have also examined the correctness of the findings recorded by the fora below.  Having aregard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that a new vehicle purchased by the complainant at a cost exceeding Rs.4,00,000/- and the body of the car showed rusting and corrosion within few months of its purchase, which in the opinion of automobile engineer was due to manufacturing defect, the complainant was certainly entitled to replacement of the car.  Therefore, revision petition filed by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.

6.       Counsel for the petitioner has brought it to our notice that despite concerned District Forum issuing coercive process, the order could not be realized on the ground.  The District Forum shall exercise its power vested in it under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to see that order passed by it is realized and if it finds any practical difficulty in doing so, it will be free to approach the concerned Governmental authorities including the Chief Secretary of the State for realization of the order.  Copy of the order shall also be forwarded to the President of the State Commission for taking appropriate action in this regard.