Petitioner was the Complainant before the District Forum.   Hindustan Motors Ltd.- manufacturer  was  Opposite Party No.2, S.M.  Mirjankar &  Sons – dealer of Opposite Party No.2 was Opposite Party No. 1 and PCA & RD   Bank was Opposite Party No.3, respectively  before the  District Forum.

          Petitioner purchased a passenger vehicle from M/s. S.M. Mirjankar & Sons – Dealer,  Opposite Party No.1, manufactured  by M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., Opposite Party No.2 for earning his livelihood.   The vehicle was financed by PCA & RD Bank, Opposite Party No.3.   The grievance of  Petitioner was that  there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle such as (i)  tyres of the vehicle were worn out within 2 months of the purchase, (ii)  vehicle was not giving good average, i.e., consuming lot of fuel  (iii) emitting lot of smoke,  and (iv)  passengers  were complaining  about the  discomfort  while traveling in the vehicle.    Since the defects in the vehicle could not be rectified by the dealer and the manufacturer, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the dealer  and the manufacturer to pay to the Complainant Rs.3,80,000/- jointly and severally with interest  at the same rate as was charged by the Opposite Party No.3-Bank on the loan sanctioned to the complainant, within two months.  Rs.500/- was awarded by way of cost.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the dealer filed Appeal No.850/2004 and the  manufacturer-Hindustan Motors Ltd. filed Appeal No.786/2004.

          The State Commission disposed of  Appeal No.786 filed by  the  Hindustan Motors Ltd., OP No.2, on consent terms.   Counsel  appearing for the Hindustan Motors Ltd. – manufacturer   on instructions  submitted before the State Commission that the  ‘manufacturer is ready and willing to attend to all the defects in the vehicle existing as on today and make the vehicle workable, in good condition and roadworthy free of cost  and handover the same to the complainant within two months  from today”.   The manufacturer also undertook  to give warranty period for another one year from the date of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant.   Counsel for the Petitioner-complainant  after receiving instructions  had made the statement that  “he has no objection to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the statement made by  the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/manufacturer”.   On the basis of the statement made by the respective counsel for the parties  the State Commission disposed of the appeal by passing the following order:

“Since the vehicle in question is in possession of OP-1, we direct OP-2 that is the appellant/manufacturer  to attend to all the defects in the vehicle  free of cost as on today and make the vehicle workable, good condition and roadworthy and handover the same to the complainant within two months from today.

The appellant/manufacturer is also directed to give one year warranty from the date of delivery of vehicle to the complainant as directed above.”

          Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition.  

Counsel appearing for Petitioner contends that the State Commission has passed contradictory and inconsistent orders in two sets of Appeal filed against the same order.    In the Appeal filed by S.M.  Mirjankar &  Sons – dealer (Appeal No.850/2004) the State Commission has held the dealer to be jointly and severally liable.   Whereas in the Appeal filed by the manufacturer – Hindustan  Motors Ltd. (Appeal No.786/2004 – impugned order) the State Commission has modified the order passed by the District Forum.    We do not find any substance in this submission.   The dealer had filed appeal with the grievance that in the case of manufacturing defect, the dealer could not be held liable jointly and severally with the manufacturer especially where the sale by the manufacturer to the dealer was on principal to agent basis.  The State Commission overruled this objection by observing thus:

“Dealer is a person who actually sells the product to a Purchaser.  Therefore,  the Dealer is also a necessary party and he is also jointly and severally  liable to make good the loss, if any caused to a third party.   But if there is a manufacturing defect, the principal liability will be on the  Manufacturer and not the Dealer.   As the Dealer is a person who sells the product, as stated earlier, the liability is joint and several.  However, if the Dealer is made to pay any compensation, it is open for the Dealer to recover the same from the Manufacturer, since the Manufacturer  is principally liable, if there is any manufacturing defect.”

          The grievance of the dealer in his appeal was against   fixing of the liability jointly and severally with the manufacturer which was not accepted by the State Commission.  The State Commission held that in the case of manufacturing defect, principally, the amount is to be paid by the manufacturer.   Since the vehicle had been sold by the dealer, it was a proper and necessary party  and could be held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount along with the manufacturer.  Dealer was put at liberty to recover the amount from the manufacturer in case the amount was  recovered from him.

          In the Appeal filed by the dealer, the State Commission did not decide any dispute between the dealer and the Complainant.  Whereas in the Appeal filed by the Hindustan Motors Ltd.-manufacturer, dispute has been decided between the manufacturer and the complainant.    In the Appeal filed by the dealer point was altogether different than the point involved in the appeal filed by the manufacturer.  The point raised by the dealer was that he could not be held jointly and severally liable for the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.   Whereas in the Appeal filed by the manufacturer the question was regarding the liability vis-vis the Complainant.  The State Commission has passed the impugned Order in consent terms on the basis of the statement made by the respective counsel for the parties.  Against a consent order, no appeal or revision is maintainable. The order passed in consent terms cannot be challenged except where consent is obtained by playing fraud, duress or misrepresentation which is not the case of the complainant.

          For the reasons given above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition.   Revision Petition  is dismissed with no order as to costs.