PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 1.7.2013 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 204/2012 – The Manager, Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Chaitanya Educational Society & Ors.  by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased a school bus AP-26X8346 from OP NO. 2/Respondent No. 2 manufactured by OP No. 1/Respondent No.1 on 77.2007 for a sum of Rs.7,35,659/- with 3 years warranty.  Just after delivery, complainant found some defects in the bus and informed OP No. 2 and OP No. 2 advised complainant to approach OP No. 3/Respondent No.3.  Complainant approached OP No. 3 who attended the bus. Later on, complainant found more defects in the vehicle and OP No. 2 attended defects, but just after covering 2000 kms. vehicle gave many troubles and complainant approached  OP’s workshop several times, but defects could not be removed.  OP No. 3 asked complainant to bring the vehicle in his workshop and complainant kept his vehicle with OP No. 3 on 28.5.2009, but upto 19.6.2009, there was no response.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint, admitted sale of vehicle, but submitted that warranty for 3 years was for engine and gear box and 12 months for rest of the vehicle.  It was further submitted that vehicle was delivered on 7.7.2007 and complainant did not inform OP about water leaking from ceiling and unequal paint in the vehicle at the time of delivery.  After running 3005 kms, complainant brought the vehicle complaining about steering vibration which was rectified. It was further submitted that every time complainant got vehicle serviced after running more than required kilometres.  It was further submitted that vehicle was running  in rural area on Katcha road, so, tyres developed heavy wear and tear and there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP jointly and severally to refund repair charges of Rs.61,405/- and to pay Rs.1500/- for to and from of the vehicle and Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs.  Appeal filed by the  OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order directed OPs to check the school bus and pay amount of Rs.5,000/- against which this revision petition has been filed by the complainant along with application for condonation of delay.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay of 25 days in filing revision petition may be condoned as delay occurred due to Telangana agitation.  As there is delay of only 25 days which occurred due to Telangana agitation, I deem it appropriate to allow application for condonation of delay and condone the delay and delay stands condoned.

5.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of manufacturing defects in the vehicle, leaned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in modifying order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

6.      Perusal of record reveals that apparently, there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and complainant has not adduced any extra evidence to show that vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. As per technician of OP No. 2 who submitted report before District Forum, the vehicle had already run 1,12,336/- kilometres as on 10.5.2011 from the date of purchase, i.e., 7.7.2007 and in another 3½ years vehicle must have run another same distance.

7.      Perusal of record further reveals that vehicle was taken for service every time after running more than requisite kilometres and thus, complainant himself violated conditions of warranty.  There was only problem regarding vibration in steering which has already been repaired by OP.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not prove that any amount for repairs has been charged against the warranty conditions and learned State Commission rightly modified order of District forum. Learned State Commission has already observed that District Forum ought to have directed respondents to check the vehicle and attend problems without charging money and it ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation which is apparently correct observation.

8.      I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.      Perusal of complaint also reveals that vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes and prima facie complainant does not fall within purview of consumer under the C.P. Act.  But, as no revision petition has been filed by the OP against order of State Commission, I do not feel it appropriate to dismiss complaint in the revision petition filed by the complainant himself.

10.    Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.