JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER The Revision Petition bearing Nos. 780-781 of 2020 has been filed by the Petitioner / Opposite Party No. 1 against Respondents Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and Revision Petitions bearing No. 920 of 2021 and No. 921 of 2021 have been filed by the Opposite Party No.2 against Respondents/Complainant & Opposite Party No.1 challenging the common impugned Order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in Appeals bearing Nos. 177/2012 and 215/2012. Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore, in Complaint No. 1728/2011. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti car Model-WagonR-LXI bearing Registration No. KA-03-MN-6473 from the Opposite Party No. 2 which was manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.3,97,887/- (on loan), on 24.03.2011. It was the case of the Complainant that the vehicle had already run 48 Kms on the date of delivery and the vehicle started running into trouble after travelling for short distances. Moreover, the Opposite Party No. 2 showed no interest to rectify the problems and the problems continued to exist. Again, the car stopped to move after travelling less than 3 Kms on 04.04.2011 whereafter it was informed by an Authorised Agent, M/s Aryan Motors, claiming to be acting on the instructions of Opposite Party No. 2 that the car suffered from Defective Fuse, Defective Fan, Leaking Coolant, Heating up of radiator due to defective coolant and several other defects due to improper cooling which were a result of coolant system break down. It was further informed that the vehicle was unworthy of further use. Consequently, the vehicle was taken for repairs when it had run only 13 Kms. After repairing the vehicle, the Complainant was informed vide letter dated 08.04.2011 that the vehicle was ready for delivery. However, the Complainant sent a Legal Notice to the Opposite Parties, as he had lost confidence, asking to replace the defective vehicle with a new vehicle together with other ancillary reliefs. The Opposite Party No.2 replied to the said Notice contending that the Complainant had not started the vehicle till 04.04.2011 even after taking the delivery on 24.03.2011 and there were no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum alleging deficiency in services by the Opposite Parties seeking payment of Rs.3,97,887/- or replacement of defective car with a new car along with other ancillary reliefs. 3. The Opposite Party No.1 appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended that the liability of Opposite Party No.1 is specific as per the Warranty policy which is a part and parcel of the sale contract and the Complainant cannot be allowed to raise a claim which is not covered under the Warranty. It was further contended that the Complainant got the vehicle attended through some local/unauthorised mechanic resulting in main fuse failure and discharge of battery which resulted into a starting problem. Such an act is a grave violation of Clauses 4(e), (h) & (j) of Warranty and hence, the Warranty obligations of the Opposite Party No.1 stand forfeited. It was further contended that before the vehicle is launched in the market, it undergoes several processes of Statutory (Government) approvals and compliances apart from internal research and development. It was stated that the Complainant took the delivery of the vehicle from the Opposite Party No.2 in a perfectly alright and defect free condition on 24.03.2011. It was also stated that the Complainant had not used the vehicle which remained parked/idle for many days and so the battery got discharged and the Complainant on his free will called an unauthorised mechanic for jump starting the vehicle. Hence, the cause of action of the problem was external tampering of electrical system of the vehicle. Hence, the Complainant suffered due to his own negligent acts. Moreover, the Complainant failed to take possession of the vehicle which was kept in perfect OK condition by the Opposite Party No.2 despite several reminders. Further, any mechanical defect was denied by the Opposite Party No.1 and was contended that the Complainant had failed to bring on record any material to prove any such manufacturing defect. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs. 4. The Opposite Party No.2 appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby also denying deficiency in service on its part. It was denied that the car had run 48 Kms although the Complainant is located at a distance of 10 Kms from the showroom and contended that any vehicle during shipment and registration has to be physically driven for small distances for loading into carriers, PDI and registration. It was contended that the vehicle was brand new and did not have any defects as alleged. It was further contended that as per the documents materials sent by the Complainant, the vehicle was not used as stated for more than 10 days. It was stated that the Complainant be put to strict proof of the allegations with regards to defects. It was further stated that the Complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 24.03.2011 and was fully satisfied with the condition of the vehicle. It was also contended that the Complainant did not start the vehicle from 24.03.2011 till 04.04.2011 and the battery had drained out due to which the vehicle did not start. Under these circumstances, the Complainant called upon an unauthorised person to jump start the vehicle using wrong methods thereby causing damage to the fuse. Consequently, on the Complainant’s insistence, the vehicle was towed to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 2 and upon inspection and necessary action of replacing the fuse and changing the battery, the vehicle was ready which was intimated to the Complainant vide Email dated 07.04.2011. However, the Complainant failed to take the delivery. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.2 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. 5. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 13.12.2011 allowed the Complaint in part and observed that there is deficiency in service and also manufacturing defect while directing the Opposite Parties to replace a brand new defectless Maruti Wagon R-LXI to the Complainant, registered and insured in the name of the Complainant; execute necessary documents, and also pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. 6. Aggrieved by the above Order, Appeal bearing No. 177 of 2012 was filed by Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 against the Respondents/ Complainant & Opposite Party No.1 and Appeal bearing No. 215 of 2012 was filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 against the Respondents/Complainant & Opposite Party No. 2 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, which were decided by the common impugned Order. 7. The Ld. State Commission vide its common impugned Order dated 10.07.2019 dismissed both the Appeals while upholding the Order of the Ld. District Forum and observed inter alia:- “14. Thus OP NO. 1 is manufacturer of the Maruti Car and OP No.2 is dealing with OP NO.1 and their business is Principal to Principal basis. Further OP No.2 is Service Provider and OP NO.1 is the Manufacturer and both are liable to answer the claims of the Complainant who has purchased the vehicle by availing Bank loan and within few days encounters the vehicle having mechanical defects and OPs are escaping from their liability by repairing the same and threatening the Complainant to take back vehicle itself amounts to Unfair Trade Practice. Further the complainant purchased the vehicle is forced to hand over the vehicle to the Dealer/ Manufacturer on the ground that it is required to be repaired every now and then within a few days of its purchase and he is deprived of refund of the amount spent by him for the purchase of the vehicle and the defective vehicle would not give the satisfaction of a new vehicle. Hence, impugned Order directing the OPs to replace the existing defects prone vehicle with brand new detects free Maruti Wagon R-LXI to the Complainant is just and proper and we find there is no scope for interference with the Order. Hence, the following ORDER Both the Appeals field by the OPs are dismissed. Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Forum for disbursement to the Complainant. Return the LCR forthwith. Keep the original of the order in Appeal No. 177/2012 and copy thereon in Appeal No. 215/2012.” 8. Hence, the present Revision Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against the above-mentioned impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission. 9. Heard the Ld. Counsels for the Parties. Perused the material available on record. 10. The grounds raised by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties in each of these Revision Petitions are by and large the same. The Petitioner-Maruti Suzuki India Limited, in their Written Synopsis filed in RP No. 780-781 of 2020 has specifically mentioned the four cogent grounds which are set out as below- “A. The finding of manufacturing defect has been arrived at without the examination of an expert under Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; B. The finding of manufacturing defect has been arrived at without any cogent and material evidence on record and is based on only two documents, i.e. Consumer Feedback (filled by the Respondent No. 1 itself) and Demanded Repairs and Job Instructions Capturing Sheet (only mentions that the vehicle was in break down condition); C. The defect in the vehicle was caused on account of negligence of the Respondent No. 1; D. The Fora below could have only passed an order for replacement or refund of the defective part and not the entire vehicle”; 11. In resisting these Revision Petitions, the Respondent/Complainant has, at the outset, argued that since the findings of both the Fora below to the effect that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant had a manufacturing defect were concurrent, this Commission in its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with such finding. 12. To support this contention, reliance has been placed on an earlier decision of this Commission in “Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Nandlal and Ors., 2019 SCC Online NCDRC 544, decided on March 11, 2019”; in which the Revision Petition filed by the manufacturer of the disputed vehicle (a tractor) in that case, was dismissed after noting the observation of the State Commission which had dismissed their Appeal to the effect that “the Appellants have not produced any evidence before the District Forum which rebut these evidences. The Complainant have proved their case that tractor has the manufacturing defect. While the appellants albeit having the team of expert and even after the order of commission, could not examine the tractor in the presence of complainants.” The final decision of this Commission, therefore, was – “19. As the manufacturing defect in the tractor has been accepted by the fora below and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited and the facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission at the level of the revision petition and particularly in the light of the observations made by the State Commission with regard to the expert report, I do not find any error in the order of the State Commission………” 13. Similarly, in “Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 1185, decided on September 8, 2022”; after this Commission had reversed the concurrent decisions of both the District Forum as well as the State Commission which had found that the disputed vehicle (a car in the said case) was a used one, was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and decisions of both the lower Fora were reversed. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in this regard were set out as below – “16. At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 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. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act.” 14. Even in this situation where this Commission need not interfere into concurrent findings of both the Ld. Fora below on a question of fact to the effect that the vehicle in question sold to the Respondent/Complainant was having some manufacturing defects, it can still be observed that the reasons for this conclusion as recorded by the District Forum were actually convincing and cogent. Admittedly, break-down in the Complainant’s vehicle happened on just the 11th day after he had taken delivery of the same from the Dealer. At the outset, he found that the battery was not functional. The explanation put forth in this regard on behalf of the Opposite Parties/Petitioners was that since the Complainant had not used the vehicle at all, for all those intervening days, so the battery had drained out. The District Forum correctly rejected this contention by noting – “8…….This is an untenable contention. A brand new car even if it is not used for about a month or so the battery will not be dead, fuse will not be dead. The OP1 and 2 neither placed any record to show that within a fort night time a new battery will be dried out and coolant oil will be dried out and fuse will go if the vehicle not used. This burden heavily lies on the OPs, that has not been discharged. Hence, it means a defective vehicle has been sold to the complainant…..” 15. Thereafter, the District Forum also took notes of the fact that when the vehicle had stopped in the middle of the road on 4.4.2011, and personnel from “M/s. Aryan Motors” had come to the spot several hours later, being the geographically closet Authorised Dealer of the Manufacture, they observed several defects in the vehicle which were listed as below- “a. Fuse Defective b. Fan Defective c. Coolant Leaking d. Radiator getting heated up due defective cooling system e. Severe defects due to improper cooling which was a result of coolant system break down….” 16. It was then informed to the Complainant that the vehicle was unworthy of any further use. From their side, the Opposite Parties/Petitioners did not file any Affidavit from the side of their own Agent-M/s. Aryan Motors to deny this specific contention of the Complainant. 17. Both the Petitioners have also contended that in any event, the Ld. Fora below could not have come to such conclusion in the absence of any Expert’s evidence to establish that there was any manufacturing defect, and have also relied upon the earlier decision of this Commission in “Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Casino Dians and Ors.,RP Nos. 1369 and 1370 of 2004, decided on 27.7.2009”; in which it was observed that the Complainants/ Consumers cannot thrown their weight around by dumping a vehicle with the Manufacturer/Dealer and be adamant to decide on their own that there is any manufacturing defect in the same without any supporting evidence. 18. Similarly, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 644, decided on March 29, 2006”; has been relied upon to emphasize that in case of any problem arising in any vehicle, the obligation upon the Manufacturer in terms of the concerned Warranty would be limited to the extent of repair/replacement of any defective parts in the same, and not the replacement of the vehicle entirely. 19. The Petitioners have emphatically contended that the onus of proving the manufacturing defects in the vehicle in a case, would lie on the Complainant himself who would be required to prove his contention by way of inspection of the vehicle by any Expert, and in this regard reliance has also been placed upon the decisions of this Commission in “Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand and Anr.,, (2009) 3CPJ 229 (NC), decided on May 26, 2009”; Baljit Kaur Vs. Divine Motors and Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 212, decided on June 8, 2017; and “Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad and Ors., (2010) 3 CPJ 130 (NC), decided on May 7, 2010”; 20. Admittedly, the general accepted position in law is that onus to prove the manufacturing defect by way of inspection by an Expert would lie upon the Complainant’s side. But this cannot be a water tight proposition in all cases, as has been seen in the decision of this Commission in “Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Nandlal and Ors.” (supra) where it was held that the Complainants had proved that their tractor had a manufacturing defect, while the Appellants in spite of having a team of experts did not examine the tractor in the presence of the Complainants. 21. But, in the present case, the position is even more peculiar. Undisputedly, possession of the vehicle in question has been uninterruptedly with the Petitioner/Dealer for more 12 year since 5.4.2011. So it was for the said Petitioner/Opposite Party to get the same examined by an Expert or offered to have such examination conducted at its own premises. But the same was not done. 22. As already noted earlier, the reasons for which the Ld. District Forum was convinced that there was some manufacturing defect in the vehicle of which the battery was found discharged within 11 days of its purchase, and it broke down while running on the very first day thereafter, following which several defects already noted earlier had been found by the personnel of M/s. Aryan Motors/Agents of the Petitioners themselves, whose Affidavit to deny the averments and contentions was not filed on behalf of the Petitioner, was passed on very cogent grounds and reasons, which were also accepted by the State Commission. Consequently, in view of the settled law on this aspect that there being no jurisdictional error on the part of the Ld. Fora below qua this concurrent finding on fact, this Commission need not enter into this part of the controversy. 23. In addition, it has also been contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the defect in the vehicle was caused on account of negligence on the part of the Complainant/Respondent himself. To substantiate this contention, the Petitioner/Manufacturers in their Written Synopsis have mentioned – “It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Fora below have failed to appreciate the fact that the defect in the vehicle was caused due to the negligence of the Respondent No. 1 herein as the Respondent No.1 failed to abide by the instructions enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet under the head “Inspection and Maintenance-Battery” and “Emergency service-Jump Starting Instructions”. Therefore, it is submitted that the Respondent No. 1 grossly violated the terms and conditions of the Warranty Policy (Ref: Pg. 86 of the Petition) being Clause 4(e), (h) and (j) which the Fora below failed to account for. The Impugned Judgment has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record. The fora below failed to appreciate that the vehicle, after its purchase, was parked in idle condition for a long period of time which resulted in discharge of battery. When the vehicle did not start, the Respondent No. 1, with the help of a local/unauthorised mechanic, tried to jump start the vehicle. This conduct resulted in the damage of fuse. In view of the negligent conduct on the part of the Respondent No. 1, M/s. Aryan Motors, who attended the vehicle, found the fuse box open and battery discharged. Therefore, the defect in the vehicle developed due to the sheer carelessness of the Respondent No. 1 and cannot be terms as a manufacturing defect. Since the defect occurred on account of negligence of the Respondent No. 1, the warranty terms stood vitiated…….”. 24. The above contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners/Opposite Parties imputing defects in the vehicle to the own acts of the Complainant are not at all convincing. It has been alleged that when the vehicle did not start, the Complainant with the help of some local/unauthorised Mechanic had tried to jump start the same which resulted in damage to the fuse of the car. It was, however, nowhere the case of the Complainant that he had in any manner “jump start” the vehicle by calling any local or unauthorised Mechanic for that purpose. Significantly, copy of the Affidavit in Evidence if any, filed on behalf of the Complainant in the Ld. District Forum has not been filed alongwith rest of the papers in the present Revision Petitions. The Petitioners who are the manufacturers and the dealer concerned of the vehicle had, however, not omitted to place the Affidavits in Evidence filed from their sides in the District Forum alongwith the Revision Petitions. But, the copy of the Complainant’s letter dated 6.4.2011 which is document No. 14 at page 66 of the Paper Book of RP No. 780-781 of 2020, clearly contains his version that, “on the 4th April barely a week after the purchase when I tried to start the vehicle, the battery was completely dead. It had to be charged for a while and I was able to move it. I drove it hardly for 3 kms and the vehicle stopped on the way……”. 25. So, the Complainant from his side admitted to having “charged” the dead battery, and never got the vehicle to be “jump started” by way of having it pushed or in any other manner with the help of any local/unauthorised Mechanic. That was on the 11th day after delivery of the vehicle had been taken by the Complainant, and as rightly noted by the Ld. District Forum, the battery having gone dead/discharged over this period of time was untenable, since in case of any brand new car which have not been used even for a month, will not cause the battery to be dead or to damage the fuse. In any event, even assuming that the fuse on account of such “jump starting” of the vehicle had got damaged, then the car should not have started or moved at all from that moment, and consequently there could not have been any scope for rest of the defects noticed in the same which, as already seen in Para 15 earlier, were as varied as the fan being defective, the coolant leaking, and the radiator getting heated up due to defective cooling system, which itself had broken down. In the totality of the circumstances therefore the decision of the District Forum on this count which rejected the version of the Petitioners/ Opposite Parties to fasten the responsibility for the alleged defects in the vehicle upon the Complainant himself was certainly justified, and was rightly affirmed by the Ld. State Commission. 26. Consequently, the grounds A,B & C which have been noted in the earlier Para 10 are not found tenable in view of the detailed discussion in the foregoing paragraphs. The last ground (D) to the effect that the Fora below could have only passed an order for replacement or refund of the defective part and not of the entire vehicle, is also found to be untenable. That is so because it is nowhere the case of either of the Petitioners that any part of the vehicle in question was actually found to be defective. On the other hand, their case all along has been that there was no defect whatsoever in the car, and that the fuse of the same had blown off due to “jump starting” by the Complainant, which assertion/explanation has not been found to be reliable by both the Ld. Fora below. Further, by their own admission, the fuse so blown off had already been repaired or replaced by the Petitioners and no charges for the same were claimed to have been levied. In such situation, when the own case of the Petitioners is that there was no defective part which could have been ordered to be replaced or against which refund should have been ordered by the Fora below, the contention that the Ld. Fora below could have ordered replacement of the defective parts, becomes at once preposterous. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission finds no grounds to substantially interfere with the concurrent decision of both the Fora below, although they appear to have ignored that the primary prayer (a) of the Complainant in his complaint was to direct the Petitioners/Opposite Parties to pay back the amount of Rs. 3,97,887/- to him being the cost of the new vehicle, and the prayer for a direction to replace the defective car with a brand new car of the same model and make was the alternative/supplementary prayer (b) . After passage of such a long time, a brand new car of the relevant model (2011) may not be actually available nor feasible to maintain at this stage. Consequently, the impugned Orders are modified to the extent that instead of granting prayer (b) as made on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant in his complaint, the prayer(a) directing the Petitioners/Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs. 3,97,887/- jointly and severally to the Complainant, is allowed. They shall also pay interest @ 6% p.a. on such amount from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual payment which shall be completed within two months from the date of this Order, failing which, interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable on any outstanding payments. The Complainant/Respondent shall return all the documents concerning the vehicle in question, if any, still remaining in his custody. In addition, the litigation costs awarded to the Complainant by the Fora below are also enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. | 
