1. These are two Revision Petitions filed one by the Manufacturer TATA Motors Ltd. being Petitioner in RP/4113/2011 and the other by Tayal India Motors Pvt. Ltd./ Dealer being Petitioner in RP/718/2012 against the common Order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, State Commission) dated 26.08.2011, wherein the Appeal filed by the two Petitioners against the common Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, District Forum) was dismissed. The District Forum had allowed the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1/ Complainant, Jogender Sharma (since expired) and ordered replacement of the vehicle on the ground of manufacturing defect or in the alternative jointly and severally refund the value of the vehicle being Rs.7,25,617/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum.
2. Aggrieved by the Order dated 07.12.2009 of the District Forum, the Petitioners, Tata Motors Pvt Ltd and Tayal India Motors Ltd. filed their Appeal before the State Commission, which, vide Order dated 26.08.2011 dismissed the Appeals with the following observations:-

“We are not in agreement the plea taken by the opposite parties, because the defects in the vehicle developed due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. In any case the defects developed within a week of its purchase. The manufacturer cannot wash its hands of raising plea that vehicles are transferred to dealer on principal to principal basis, as the warranty is by manufacturer and not of dealer. If any defect develops during warranty or some manufacturing defect is noticed during warranty, it is the manufacturer who is liable for replacement under warranty conditions. Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.N. Anantheran vs. M/S Fiat India Ltd., (2011)1 CPC 39, wherein also despite change of engine defects still remaining ordered for refund of entire cost with interest @12%. More so, the defects which have occurred in the vehicle while it remained parked in the workshop with the dealer, the same is the responsibility of the dealer and not of the manufacturer. The Inspection Note dated 12^th August, 2011 supports the version of the Complainant. Thus, both the dealer as well as the manufacturer of the vehicle are responsible to supply a new vehicle to the complainant having manufacturing defect and for that reason no case for interference in the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum is made out.”

3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to the filing of the Complainant and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same in detail, when the findings of both the fora are concurrent on facts.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the Manufacturer argued that the Diesel vehicle “Tata Safari Dicor Quartz” was purchased from Tayal India Motors Limited on 06.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.7,25,617/-.  Learned District Forum solely on presumption wrongly concluded that the vehicle in question suffered from a manufacturing defect. Learned Counsel further argued that the members of the State Commission, lacking expertise in engineering, were not qualified to conduct any inspection of the vehicle in question. Therefore, the ‘inspection note’ had no legal sanctity. The Job Card is also not on record.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant argued that the Advocates representing the Petitioner failed to raise any objections to the inspection conducted by the members of the State Commission on 12.08.2011, after which the State Commission had passed the impugned Order dated 26.08.2011. The Complainant purchased the vehicle in question for Rs.7,25,617/- and used it only for 180 days before raising the present complaint. The Job Card had been filed with the District Forum. The vehicle experienced problems just 5-6 days after purchase, prompting the Complainant to take it to the service centre of Tayal India Motors Ltd. on 10.07.2007. After a few days, the vehicle had to be towed back on 23.07.2007, and it was again brought to the Tata Motors service centre in Ambala, Metro Motors on 01.08.2007. The vehicle was sent from the authorized service centre of Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd., Metro Motors, Ambala to Tayal Motors in Faridabad on 10.08.2018. The vehicle has been lying with Tayal Motors Pvt Ltd. since 10.08.2007. The Complainant relied on the order of the Supreme Court in Ford India Pvt Ltd. vs. M/S Medical Eleborate Concept Private Limited and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4192-4194/2023, decided on 05.07.2023.
7. Learned Counsel for the Dealer argued that the Complainant on 23.07.2007 brought the vehicle to the Petitioner’s workshop with an issue of cold starting, engine light come, headlight and door noise. The vehicle was returned after the completion of necessary repairs. The vehicle was brought in again on 06.08.2007 after repairs by Metro Motors. The Complainant requested delivery of the vehicle at Faridabad but never came to collect it. The Dealer bears no liability, as it is not the manufacturer. Furthermore, the last repair was performed by Metro Motors, and the vehicle had not been fully repaired. The Complainant also did not conduct a test drive following the repairs made by Metro Motors. The Dealer relied on the order of the Supreme Court in  Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Anr vs. N. Siva Kumar and Another, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654.
8. In the instant case, the State Commission President and one Member themselves inspected the vehicle and prepared an “Inspection Note”, on the basis of which the decision was rendered in favour of the Complainant on the ground of there being a manufacturing defect. Though in a strict sense they may not be termed as ‘expert’ but their report also cannot be ignored altogether. 
9. The perusal of the order of the District Forum clearly indicates that the new vehicle required repairs after only 980 km/ 5-6 days of use, visiting the service centre multiple times on 10.07.2007, 23.07.2007, and 01.08.2007, all during the warranty period. The Job Cards of Metro Motors, Ambala which is on record with the District Commission also listed the defects in vehicle. When a consumer buys a vehicle, he expects it to be free of defects and in good working order. If a vehicle encounters problems within the first few months, it suggests that there may be an inherent issue with it.  It is of no consequence whether the defect was the responsibility of the manufacturer or the dealer, as far as their liability goes, they will be jointly and severally liable for selling a defective vehicle to the consumer. The Petitioners have definitely committed deficiency of service under the Act.
10. Reliance is placed on the Order of this Commission titled, Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. Dr. Koneru Satya Kishore & Ors., 2017 SCC Online NCDRC 1974, decided on 16.11.2017, in which it has been held that

“If the vehicle suffered from defects as evidence by the repeated visits to the workshop then, the vehicle qualified to be called a manufacturing defect and it was the duty of manufacturer to take steps to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to the Complainants in a road worthy conditions.”

11. Now, the issue to be decided is whether replacement as directed by the District Forum is justified at this stage. The vehicle is lying with the Dealer since 10.08.2007. More than 17 years have passed since the purchase of the vehicle by the Complainant. No purpose would be served even if any repairs are carried out at this time. Further, since the manufacturing of this model of vehicle i.e. TATA Dicor Quartz may have already been stopped by the Manufacturer, the only remedy available to the Complainant is to receive a refund of the cost price of the vehicle.
12. It is a well-established principle that this Commission has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission except for any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard:

1. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it”

3. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, wherein it was held as under:

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercise only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the court below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.” 

d.   Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286) decided on 02.08.2016, wherein it was held as under:

 “23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reason” 

5. Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 decided on 21.01.2022 , wherein it was held as under: 

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-Bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

13. For the aforesaid reasons and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the present Revision Petitions are dismissed. The Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are partly upheld and modified with the following directions:-

1. The Petitioners jointly and severally shall pay to the legal heirs of the Complainant an amount of Rs.7,25,617/- i.e. sale price of the Car alongwith interest @ 6% w.e.f. filing of the Complaint till the date of actual payment within six weeks of this Order, failing which the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 9% per annum for the same period.
2. The Petitioners shall also pay Rs.25,000/- to the legal heirs of the Complainant as litigation cost.

14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.