By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), India Yamaha Motor Private Limited, manufacturers of Yamaha Motor Cycle SZ-R-153-CC, and its Customer Care Division and Technical Training Centre, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in the Complaint, call in question the correctness and legality -3- of the order dated 17.10.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1830 of 2012. By the impugned order, partly allowing the Appeal preferred by the Authorised Dealer of the Petitioners, against the order dated 27.08.2012 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Gulbarga (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.193 of 2011, the State Commission, while affirming the finding recorded by the District Forum to the effect that the said vehicle, purchased by the Complainant, suffered from inherent manufacturing defect, which could not be rectified, has exonerated the Dealer, Opposite Party No.4 in the Complaint from the liability to refund a sum of ₹56,240/- to the Complainant, as directed by the District Forum. In essence, the entire liability towards the cost of the vehicle etc. as determined by the District Forum on account of the inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle has now been fastened on the Petitioners. The order was directed to be complied with within three months from the date of its receipt. Hence the Petition. Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, who is assisted by Mr. Abid Ali, Deputy Manager of the Petitioner Company and perused the documents on record, including the Job Cards, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the present Revision Petition. -4- It is manifest that although the afore-noted finding returned by the District Forum, viz. that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect, primarily related to the manufacturer of the vehicle, the Petitioners herein, but they chose not to challenge the same by filing an independent Appeal to the higher Forum and thus, it attained finality qua them. That being so, the said concurrent finding of fact being based on cogent evidence, i.e., the repeated Complaints noted on the Job Cards, clearly indicating the nature of the defects in the vehicle, brought to the notice of the Dealer within two months of its purchase, which by that time had covered only 3069 kms., we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction, particularly when the said finding has not been challenged as being perverse on any ground what so ever and the total amount involved in the case is a paltry sum of ₹56,240/. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. |
