1.      This present Revision Petition has been filed under Section ­­­21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 01.08.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 127 of 2017, wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioners/ OPs was dismissed and affirmed the Order dated 03.01.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 347/2013.

2.      There is 14 days delay in filing this Petition. For reasons stated in IA No. 5982/2018, vide order dated 19.03.2019 the delay was condoned.

3.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Mr. Ram Kumar is identified as the Complainant. Whereas, Tata Motors Ltd., through Manager, Maharashtra & Raipur are identified as the OP-1 & OP-2 Manufacturer, National Garage, through Manager, Raipur is identified as the OP-3-Dealer & Cholamandalam Finance Co. Ltd.-Financer is referred to as the OP-4 in this matter.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Tata Venture vehicle Registration No. CG-04-HD-3642 from OP-3, manufactured by OP-1 and OP-2, on 27.02.2012 for Rs.6,27,000/-. The Complainant alleged that the vehicle had multiple manufacturing defects, including issues such as door not locking, window glass not closing, malfunctioning air conditioner, gear problems due to a hard clutch, intermittent breaking of the coolant pipe, wheel jamming, and repeated bearing failures within just 21 to 22 days of purchase. When the vehicle was finally taken for repairs on 10.06.2013, it took almost a month to address these issues. However, the vehicle experienced gear and wheel jamming again on 18.07.2013 and continued to exhibit various defects over the next one and a half years, rendering it unusable for extended periods. Due to these persistent issues, the Complainant eventually handed over the vehicle to National Garage (OP-3), stating that the vehicle spent more time in the garage than in use. The first instance of repair occurred on 21.03.2012, addressing defects such as a non-functioning air conditioner and front wheel jamming. Subsequently, the vehicle was repeatedly given for repairs to OP-3 on various dates from 17.04.2012 to 10.06.2013. Despite these efforts, the vehicle's manufacturing defects could not be permanently resolved during the warranty period, and the vehicle was returned to the Complainant with temporary fixes.

5.      The Complainant further asserted that the recurring defects during the warranty period indicated inherent manufacturing issues and requested a replacement vehicle. However, OP-3 only provided assurances without taking concrete action, allegedly aiming to prolong the warranty period and avoid responsibility. He forwarded a legal notice, which received no response or action from OPs. Consequently, he continued to pay loan installments for a vehicle that remained largely unusable, leading to financial losses. Aggrieved by this situation, he filed Consumer Complaint No. 347 of 2013 before the Ld. District Forum, seeking reimbursement of the vehicle's total cost of Rs.6,27,000/- with 12% annual interest, and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental distress and other grievances from the OPs.

6.      In reply filed before the District Forum, OP-1 and OP-2 contested the allegations, asserting that vehicles manufactured by them undergo stringent quality checks and road trials before commercial production and marketing and are approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). Their vehicles, including the one purchased by the Complainant, are inspected for control systems, quality checks, and test drives before being sold. He accepted the vehicle after being satisfied with its condition and performance. OP-1 and OP-2 are certified as "ISO TS / 16949," indicating high standards of quality. Any vehicle brought to the workshop for scheduled services or repairs undergoes standard inspections recorded on job cards by Service Advisors, which ensures that the vehicles meet the warranties, assurances, and specifications regarding quality and performance. On merits, OP-1 and OP-2 contended that the Complainant purchased the vehicle on 27.02.2012, and by 12.08.2013 it had run 32,387 KM, indicating that it was extensively used without defects. The allegations of manufacturing defects were unfounded and highlighted that the burden of proving such defects lies with the Complainant, through a report from a specialist or mechanical engineer as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the absence of such report, the claim of manufacturing defects cannot be substantiated. OP-1 and 2 also pointed out that their vehicles come with a warranty subject to specific conditions, which were clearly communicated to him through the Owner's Manual and Service Book. They stressed the importance of regular maintenance and servicing at authorized centers, which he failed as evidenced by the missed/delayed services. This failure to adhere to the maintenance schedule invalidated the warranty as per the terms stated in warranty Clause No. 5. The vehicle was brought to their service center on 08.12.2012 and 12.08.2013 in an accidental condition. According to Warranty Clause No. 7, any accident terminates the warranty. They contended that the defects were due to his negligent driving and maintenance, resulting in multiple accidents. OP-1 and OP-2 emphasized that their relationship with OP-3 is based on a “Principal" to "Principal" basis, thereby absolving them of liability for any independent acts or omissions by OP-3. They asserted that the complaint was baseless and intended to harass them. Despite lapse of warranty, they repaired the vehicle and replaced faulty parts without extra charges, as shown by tax invoices from 12.11.2013, 11.03.2013, and 29.04.2013. They argued that the Complainant had suffered no loss due to their actions and was not entitled to any compensation. They sought the complaint to be dismissed with costs.

7.      In reply before the Ld. District Forum, OP-3 contended that the Complainant first brought his vehicle to their workshop on 17.04.2012, reporting less cooling effect and a malfunctioning windshield wiper. By then, the vehicle had run 5,001 km. OP-3 provided free servicing, regularized the cooling effect, and replaced the wiper spindle under warranty. He returned on 25.05.2012 for scheduled service and to address coolant leakage. By then, the vehicle had run 10,456 km. OP-3 installed new coolant hoses under warranty, and no repeated complaints were noted. He also attended a summer camp at the workshop for a general check up. OP-3 asserted that the issues reported by the Complainant were general and expected during normal vehicle operation. Between 17.04.2012 and 25.05.2012, the vehicle ran 10,456 km within 85 days of its purchase without difficulty, indicating no manufacturing defects. Such usage suggests that it was used for commercial purposes, disqualifying the Complainant from being considered a "Consumer" under the Act. On 16.06.2012, he brought the vehicle to the workshop again, citing gear sticking, an incorrect fuel gauge, and a hard clutch. The vehicle had run 11,865 km by then. OP-3 installed a new gearbox and replaced the instrument cluster under warranty, satisfying the Complainant. On 03.09.2012, the vehicle was brought in for scheduled service with issues such as door lock problems, an inaccurate fuel gauge, undercarriage noise, and gear lever issues. By then, the vehicle had run 22,091 km, and all complaints were addressed under warranty. On 20.10.2012, the car was brought in for standard checking without any specific complaints. It was checked and returned to him under warranty. On 17.11.2012, the vehicle was brought in again with cold starting issues, a hard clutch, and undercarriage noise. OP-3 replaced the starter, clutch cable, and adjusted the front axle bearing under warranty. Reported issues were general and addressed under warranty terms.

8.      The vehicle was brought to the workshop on 08.12.2012 after an accident, which, as per warranty terms, voided the warranty. OP-3 claimed that the Complainant suppressed this fact, indicating bad faith. Post-accident, repair charges for the door were taken, as accidental damages are not covered under warranty. On 31.12.2012, the vehicle was brought in for a hard clutch, hard gear shifting, and engine coolant leakage. Despite the expired warranty, OP-3 replaced the clutch drive/ plate, clutch knob, and radiator under warranty terms. The vehicle had run 17,102 km by then. On 10.01.2013, the vehicle was brought in for cold starting issues, a malfunctioning power window, and poor music system sound quality. OP-3 repaired these under warranty and only charged for five liters of diesel. On 29.01.2013, complaints of cold starting, a fog lamp issue, and condensation were addressed. The vehicle was brought in on 08.12.2012 post-accident, and recurring issues were identified. OP-3 argued that if the car had manufacturing defects, they would have been apparent from the purchase date. On 15.12.2013, with the vehicle having run 18,722 km, it was brought in for hard gear shifting, undercarriage noise, scheduled service, steering system issues, and a malfunctioning odometer. OP-3 replaced the gear knob, front anti-roll bar, silencer, steering gearbox, and power steering pulley under warranty. On 12.03.2013 no repeated complaints from 15.02.2013 were noted, only issues with engine oil leakage and door locks were addressed. On 01.05.2013, with the car having run 26,000 km, it was taken to Bhasin Motors for gear shifting, brake, door lock, cooling, and clutch issues, which were repaired. On 10.05.2013, at 27,232 km, the vehicle was brought for scheduled service and brake issues, which were resolved with replacement of a brake-shoe. The Complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect and misinterpreted warranty terms, and used the vehicle for commercial purposes. OP-3 requested the complaint be dismissed with costs.

9.      In reply filed before the District Forum, OP-4 raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Forum, stating that it does not have the authority to entertain this complaint. The matter is of a civil nature requiring detailed evidence, which cannot be addressed through the Forum’s summary process. He does not qualify as a consumer as the vehicle was used for business purposes, including the employment of a paid driver and helper, indicating commercial use. He did not assert that the vehicle’s proceeds were used for personal livelihood. Their relationship is purely that of debtor and financer, with no allegations of deficiency in service against OP-4. He has no valid grounds to lodge a complaint against OP-4. In terms of Section 8 Clause 29 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Forum lacks jurisdiction in the case. OP-4 noted that it is registered as a Non-Banking Finance Company under the Companies Act, 1956, operating in the finance sector and providing loans. OP-4 facilitated a loan for him to purchase the vehicle and was responsible for ensuring full repayment of the loan installments. OP-4 asserted that it had not engaged in any unfair trade practices or provided deficient services to the Complainant. Therefore, OP-4 requested that the complaint against it be dismissed with costs.

10.    The Ld. District Forum vide Order dated 03.01.2017, allowed the complaint and held OP-1 to OP-3 responsible for providing deficient service. The forum based its decision on the following reasons:

“18. Matter was examined. In this matter, it is proved after the observation of various job cards of different dates submitted by the Complainant for the repairing of his vehicle given by the Non Applicant Group that this vehicle was required to be sent to the garage of Non Applicant Group for getting it repaired again and again. Within just 21-22 days of its purchase, this vehicle showed various manufacturing defects such as door not locking, glass not closing, defect in A. C., gear getting jammed or not working due to clutch getting hard, breaking of coolant pipe again and again besides wheels getting jammed and breaking of bearing on many occasions. Even after repairing also, vehicles suffered various problems, which itself proves that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects. As such, we come to this conclusion that though the Non Applicant No. 1 to 3 knew the manufacturing defects in this vehicle sold to the Complainant and applied deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practices. Non Applicant No. 4 is only the Financer for the vehicle; hence, no question of deficiency in service arises by him. As a result, Non-Applicant No 4 is released from all the liabilities.

19. As a result, in the above circumstances, claim of the Complainant against the Non Applicant No.1 to 3 is accepted by us and give our conclusion that Non Applicant No. 1 to 3 are on jointly or severally, guilty in this matter for giving deficiency in service as well as business misconception. Hence, Complainant is eligible to get new vehicle of same model in place of subject vehicle or to get total value of the subject car amounting to Rs.6,27,000/-along with the interest from Non Applicant No. 1 to 3, jointly and severally. Complainant is also eligible to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental stress, along with Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the complaint from the Non Applicant No. 1 to 3, jointly and severally.

20. Hence, as per the thorough deliberation mentioned above, we accept the subject complaint partially and give order that the following should be complied jointly or severally within one month from the date of this order :-

(a) Non Applicant No. 1 to 3, should give new vehicle of Tata Venture subject Model or cost of the vehicle amounting to Rs.6,27,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand) along with 9% interest per annum from the date of the complaint 02 / 09 / 2013.

(b) Non Applicant No. 1 to 3, should pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand to the Complainant towards the mental stress suffered by him because of the above mentioned acts.

(c) Non Applicant No. 1 to 3, should pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to the Complainant towards the fees of the Advocate as well as cost of the complaint.”

(Extracted from true translated copy)

11.    Aggrieved by the District Forum order, the OPs filed two Appeals No. FA/79/2017 by OP-3 & FA/127/2017 by OP-1 & 2 and the State Commission vide common order dated 01.08.2017, dismissed both the Appeals, affirmed the District Forum order with following observations:

“21.     Perusal of documents and evidence submitted in this matter was made by us. Complainant has submitted in his support of argument that his vehicle was given to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 3 on various occasions between the dates of 27/02/ 2012 to 10/06/2013 for various problems and submitted photocopies of the job cards and job slips ( documents no. A5 to A42 ) and we have observed all these job cards. It is proved from these documents that within just few days after its purchase, the subject vehicle suffered serious problems which cannot be treated as ordinary. Within just 21-22 days after the purchase of the subject vehicle serious problems such as door not locking due to electronic defect, window glass not closing fully, A.C. not working, gear stuck or not working due to clutch getting hard, breaking of coolant pipe again and again besides wheels getting jammed and breaking of bearing on many occasions, etc., cannot be treated in the category of ordinary problems. This definitely shows and proves that there are manufacturing defects in the subject vehicle. Hence, it shall not be proper to pressurize for requirement of specialist report in such matters. This matter is clearly of "Res ipsa loquitur". Where there is no requirement of evidence of specialist report. As such, we accept the argument of the Complainant that the subject vehicle was having manufacturing defects, and refusing to give the replacement of new vehicle in place of this clearly shows deficiency in service as well as business misconception. The conclusion made by the District Forum in Para 16 of its order is fully proper. There is no illegality and irregularity.

24. As mentioned above, after considering the facts and documents in this matter, we have come to the conclusion that both the appeals no. FA/17/127 filed by the Non Applicant No. 1 & 2 as well as appeal no. FA/17/79 filed by the Non Applicant No. 3 are repealed as these are immaterial and baseless. Since the order under review issued by the District Forum dated 03 / 01 / 2017 is lawful and correct, it is declared as perfect. No order is given in regard to the cost of the case.

(Extracted from true translated copy)

12.    The Petitioner/OP-1 & 2, being dissatisfied with the Impugned Order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the Ld. State Commission, has filed the instant Revision Petition.

13.    In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/OP-1 & 2 reiterated the contentions previously presented before both fora. He argued that the vehicle was used extensively for commercial purposes and the vehicle had run 32,387 kilometers in just 18 months. Therefore, this is not a case warranting the replacement of the vehicle. It is evident that the vehicle is roadworthy and used regularly by the Complainant, indicating that there is no "manufacturing defect". The Complainant is primarily interested in getting the vehicle replaced, but such a request cannot be granted. Additionally, the Complainant did not get the vehicle inspected by an independent institution as required under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, 1986, to substantiate the allegations. Further, the relationship between the OPs is on a Principal-to-Principal basis, meaning the Petitioners/OP-1 & 2 cannot be held liable for any independent acts or omissions by the other OP. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by both fora below should be set aside.

14.    The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/OP-3 reiterated the contentions previously presented before both fora and vehemently argued that Respondent No. 2/OP-3 is the dealer of the vehicle, not the manufacturer. It is emphasized that Respondent No. 2/OP-3 has provided all services as permitted under warranty. The observations made by the District Commission and the State Commission against Respondent No. 2/OP-3 are inaccurate. The Complainant failed to provide evidence regarding any manufacturing defect, rendering the orders passed by both forums incorrect. As Respondent No. 2/OP-3 is not the manufacturer of the vehicle, no order should be passed against them for the replacement of the new vehicle. It is prayed that Respondent No. 2/OP-3 be exonerated in the interest of justice.

15.    On the other hand, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/ Complainant vehemently argued that this case involves concurrent findings of the lower fora upholding the complaint, with both the learned fora unanimously deciding in favor of the Complainant. The State Commission determined that the issues reported with the vehicle cannot be attributed to normal wear and tear. Within 21-22 days of the vehicle's purchase, multiple defects were reported, clearly indicating manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Moreover, the impugned order concluded that manufacturing defects could be automatically inferred in the vehicle by relying on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, thereby negating the need for an expert report. The learned Counsel for the Complainant further contended that the Petitioners' argument that the vehicle was brought in for repairs following an accident on 08.12.2012 was dismissed by the lower fora. It was established that serious issues were already occurring in the vehicle about 10 months prior to the said accident. Additionally, the lower fora held that the Petitioners failed to substantiate their allegation that the vehicle was being used commercially. Regarding the liability of the manufacturer and dealer, it was argued that the dealer did not conduct a proper inspection of the vehicle before delivery, resulting in the sale of a defective vehicle to him. As regards the argument of extensive usage of the vehicle, it was asserted that the frequent breakdowns caused the vehicle to remain in the garage for repairs more often than it was in service. Since the OPs did not provide any remedy, he had no choice but to return the vehicle to OP-3. He sought the Revision Petition to be dismissed.

16.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the Orders of both the fora and arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

17.    Main issue in this matter revolves around the allegation of "manufacturing defects" raised by the Complainant /Respondent No. 1 concerning the vehicle in question manufactured by OP-1 & 2 and purchased from OP-3. Specifically, the recurring problems suffered by the Complainant included door not locking, window glass not closing, malfunctioning air conditioner, gear problems due to a hard clutch, intermittent breaking of the coolant pipe, wheel jamming, and repeated bearing failures, which started showing up within about 20 days of purchase. Despite efforts on multiple occasions by the Complainant in taking the vehicle to OP-3 garage, the problems remained unresolved. Undisputedly the Complainant purchased the vehicle for Rs.6,27,000/-. To determine whether he is entitled to either receive a replacement vehicle or reimbursement of the vehicle's value amounting to Rs.6,27,000/- along with costs and compensation, it is essential to establish that the vehicle suffered manufacturing defects which substantially hindered the vehicle's functionality and safety.

18.    As regards addressing the core contention with respect to manufacturing defect, the question is whether the Complainant should approach a recognized Govt. authority for inspection in accordance with Section 13 of the Act? An excerpt from Section 13 pertaining to manufacturing defects is reproduced below:-

13. (1) Procedure on admission of complaint (1) The District Forum shall, [on admission of a complaint] if it relates to any goods –

(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum;

19.    Upon careful examination of the material on record and the orders of both fora, it is evident that the Complainant purchased a Tata Venture vehicle from OP-3 manufactured by OP-1 and 2. Within 20 days of its purchase, the vehicle exhibited various persisting issues on multiple occasions. Despite repairs, it continued to suffer from numerous problems. The job cards made by OP-3 who duly documented the repeated issues that could not be resolved, make the condition of the state of the car apparent. For clarity, it is appropriate to list the details of the job cards, including dates, complaints, and mileage, which illustrate the recurring problems in the vehicle that remained unaddressed. The details are tabulated as follows:

20.    Scrutiny of the aforesaid job card details documented by OP-3 makes it evident that the vehicle in question exhibited persistent issues and defects from the very outset, which OP-3 failed to adequately repair. This demonstrated a clear deficiency in service, as the problems and defects were not resolved. Considering the fact that OP-3 is the authorized servicing agency of OP-1 and 2, and OP-3 could not address the deficiencies which persisted and severely constrained the basic use and enjoyment of the vehicle purchased by the Complainant as demonstrated above, no different opinion was reasonably expected from any expert. OP-3 inherently has Engineers and Technicians specially trained and qualified to service the type of the car under dispute, provided the resolution of the defect is possible. Therefore, the learned State Commission after considering the failure of OP-3, to rectify the defects, did not find the requirement of any other expert opinion under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act necessary in the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and established persisting unresolved defects in the vehicle, I endorse the same.

21.    The repetitive nature of the defects in the car is undisputed. The learned District Forum and the learned State Commission examined the evidence and passed well reasoned concurrent findings that the Petitioners sold a defective car to the Complainant in which multiple defects which emerged within 20 days of purchase and, despite several attempts to rectify these issues through visits to OP-3, the defects remained unresolved. This rendered the vehicle unusable by the Complainant within a short time.

22.    It is a well settled position in law that revision under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which are pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this regard, I rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

23.    The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022, it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing 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. .....”

24. Similarly, in a recent the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held:-

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally  or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 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.

25.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld.

26.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

27.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

28.    The amount deposited by the Petitioner before this Commission, if any due, may be refunded along with accrued interest, if any, after due compliance of the order of the learned State Commission.