JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

          The complainant petitioner purchased a Hyundai Santro car from the respondent No. 2, Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd. on 17.11.2008. Alleging defects in vehicle purchased by him he took the vehicle to the workshop but it was not repaired to his satisfaction. He, therefore, filed a consumer complaint before the concerned District Forum impleading the manufacturer as well as the car dealer as the respondents.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondents but, was allowed by the District Forum against the manufacturer and dealer M/s Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd. and they were directed to refund the original  cost of the car along with compensation.

3.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, both the manufacturer as well as the dealer Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd., approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. The appeals having been allowed and the order passed by the District Forum having been set aside the complainant is before this Commission by way of these revision petitions.

4.      The paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order read as under:-

“5.        On October 13^th, 2014, following order was passed by this Commission:-

            “Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 - complainant has stated that in case the car is repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant by Hundai Motors India Limited(manufacturer), he would be satisfied.  In face of it, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 -Hyundai Motors India Limited has stated that the car shall be repaired at Kaushlya Hundai (Authorized Dealer), Kurukshetra – respondent No. 3.  After repair of the car, two Engineers of respondent No. 2 would examine and issue a certificate to the complainant with respect to the repair made by them. The expenses incurred on the repair of the car shall be borne by the manufacturer.

Adjourned to 27.11.2014.

Interim order dated 09^th January, 2014 to continue.”

6.         The appellants have placed on record the reports (Annexures A-10 and A-11) of two Automobile Engineers of Hyundai Motor India Limited viz. Vivek Singh and Jamaludeen K.  In their reports, it was stated that repair work was carried out and the car was delivered to the complainant on December 15^th, 2014 in perfect running condition.  The cost incurred by them on the repair of the car was Rs. 1,17,063/-.  Pre-invoice also attached in support of their statements.”    

5.      It would thus be seen that the complainant had accepted repair of the car to his satisfaction in the settlement of his claim. This would mean that if the car was repaired to his satisfaction he would not press for any other relief. Acting upon the aforesaid statement of the complainant the State Commission got the vehicle repaired at Kausalya Hyundai, the authorized dealer of the vehicle. After repair of the vehicle it was examined by two engineers who issued a certificate to the complainant certifying adequate repairing of the car. The cost of the repair worked out at Rs.1,17,063/- which was borne by the manufacturer. The vehicle was thus repaired incurring a cost of Rs.1,17,063/-.

6.      The submission of the counsel for the petitioner/complainant is that the vehicle was not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and the defects found in the vehicle were such which could not have been noticed at the time the delivery of the vehicle was taken.

7.      As noted earlier the car was repaired by the authorized dealer at the cost of more than Rs. One lakh which was borne by the manufacturer. It was inspected by two engineers and was duly certified. The vehicle was purchased way back in November 2008 and is in possession of the complainant after it was delivered to him as per the order of the State Commission.

8.      In the afore-noted facts and circumstances the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction almost 12 years after purchase of the vehicle. The petitioner cannot be refunded price of the vehicle nor can he get a new vehicle after the vehicle in question was repaired at the cost of more than Rs. One lakh and has been in his use for 12 years.  The revision petitions, are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.