ORDER

(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):

            These three appeals filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arise out of the order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 333 of 2008.  By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite parties and directed them to provide a new vehicle or to pay           Rs. 3,75,000/- to the complainant within a month from the date of this order.  The District Forum has also directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant towards damages/compensation. Since these three appeals arise out of the same order passed by the District Forum, therefore, these appeal are being disposed of by this Common order.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased Ambassador 1500 DSL ACE II Car UK08L6272 for a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- on 25.04.2008 from the opposite parties.  When this vehicle was used, it was found that the pick-up is low and there was sound in the engine.  The complainant took services from the opposite party No. 2, an authorized dealer.  The complainant informed the authorized dealer about the defects in the car, for which the opposite party No. 2 assured that the problem will be solved at the time of next service.  The complainant again on 24.06.2008 came for service of the vehicle and informed the dealer about the manufacturing defects like pick-up, noise in engine and about doors, which were not set.  Noise was also coming from the wheel.  The opposite party No. 2 did not rectify the problems and again the dealer assured the complainant, that these problems will be solved at the time of next service.  The complainant requested the dealer to replace the vehicle.  The vehicle was again handed over to the dealer and the opposite party No. 2 replaced some parts at its service center on 30.06.2008, for which                 Rs. 724.50ps. were charged.  Again, the defects in vehicle were not removed.  The complainant again requested to replace the said vehicle, as the said vehicle was under guarantee period, but all went in vain. In the present time, body line of the said vehicle is out, therefore, tyres are reducing and starting of the vehicle is late due to defect in the engine.  On 07.10.2008, the complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties.  There is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, for which the complainant is entitled to get a new vehicle or cost of the vehicle from the opposite parties alongwith the cost of services, cost of notice and compensation for harassment and mental agony. 

3.       The opposite party No. 1-Director, C.K. Birla has filed the written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that it is denied that the engine had low pick-up and/or has any sound. The complainant has approached the opposite party No. 2 for first initial service on 12.05.2008 with the complaint of low pick-up.  The same was duly attended.  However, service personal of the opposite party No. 2 found the complaint no existing and the same was duly conveyed to the complainant.  It is denied that the opposite party No. 2 had told the complainant that the problem will be cured on next service.  It is denied that there was any shortcoming in the manufacturing of the vehicle and is further denied that there was any problem of low pick-up and noise in the engine. It is submitted that though there was complaint of low pick-up, however, the same was again found to be non-existent.  It is wrong to say that there was any complaint of noise in engine on that date.  Rest of the complaint regarding door setting etc. were minor in nature and the same were duly taken care of by service personals of the opposite party No. 2 to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is denied that the complaints were left unattended and the complainant was asked to come again after 4 days. The subject vehicle was brought to the service bay of opposite party No. 2 on 29.06.2008 with different problems.  On that date the complaint of low pick-up was made by the complainant apart from problem in clutch of the vehicle. The problems were duly attended and some of the parts were replaced, such as clutch plate as per warranty condition and without any cost to the complainant. However, some other items such as tail light, fly wheel etc. were fitted on the instructions of complainant on chargeable basis, which are not covered under warranty.  It is denied that till date the problem in the vehicle has not been rectified or there is any deficiency in service on the part of either of the opposite party.  It is further denied that any monetary, mental or physical loss has been caused to the complainant due to alleged act of the opposite parties. The other defects with regard to defect in the body and tyre of the vehicle has never been complained to the opposite parties and as such denied. On 28.06.2008, vehicle was brought to the service bay of the opposite party No. 2 for third initial service and on that date there was no such complaint, i.e. low pick-up, noise in engine and body, was made by the complainant. All the complaints were minor in nature, which were duly taken care of to the satisfaction of the complainant.  This clearly shows that the vehicle was free from any mechanical defect.  It is submitted that there is no defect in the subject case and if any defect has been brought to the notice of opposite party, the same were minor in nature and has been duly taken care of to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. Since, there is no defect in the subject car, there is no question of replacing the car or refunding the amount arises. It is denied that the opposite parties have committed negligence or guilty of deficiency in service of answering opposite party on his part.

5.       The opposite party No. 2-Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. has filed its written statement before the District Forum and has pleaded that there was some minor complaint with the vehicle, where were rectified by the answering opposite party.  The vehicle was being taken by the complainant after service through job card No. 2597.  Further on 24.06.2008, after running of 5300 KMs., the vehicle was come for second service, which was attended through job card No. 3059 and at that time the complainant complained about low pick-up, which was checked by the mechanic and no problem of low pick-up was found.  After second service, the vehicle was being taken by the complainant. There was no problem of low pick-up, noise in the engine or door settings.  Again on 28.06.2008, this vehicle came for third free service and was attended through job card No. 3113 and at that time clutch system was checked.  There was no low pick-up, even this, the answering opposite party replaced the clutch plate, clutch pressure plate, clutch carbon etc. under warranty.  There was no major defects in the vehicle. Under warranty only parts of the vehicle shall change by the answering opposite party on satisfaction of the customer. The answering opposite party received a notice sent by the complainant, but it is denied that the answering opposite party has not cured the problems mentioned by the complainant. The answering opposite party always attended the vehicle and rectified the problems under warranty.  On 29.08.2008, problem of reducing tyres was also solved by rectifying wheel alignment.  At the time of third service, 5.5 liter engine oil and oil filter were changed, which were not under warranty, therefore, some payment was charged from the complainant. There is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the answering opposite party.  The District Forum, Haridwar has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, as the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from the show-room of the answering opposite party at 1-C Tyagi Road, Dehradun. Only District Forum, Dehradun has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.

5.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, has allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 18.03.2013 in the above manner.  Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 2-M/s Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. has filed First Appeal No. 105 of 2013 and whereas the opposite party No. 1-Director, C.K. Birla has filed First Appeal No. 160 of 2013 and the complainant has filed the First Appeal No. 177 of 2013, thereby assailing the propriety and the legality of the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Haridwar.

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-M/s Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. in First Appeal No. 105 of 2013; appellant-Director, C.K. Birla in First Appeal No. 160 of 2013 and appellant-Ms. Nujhat in First Appeal No. 177 of 2013 and respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in all the three appeals.  We have also perused the material placed on record.

7.       There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant-Ms. Nujhat d/o Sh. Rao Ashfaq Ali, purchased Ambassador 1500 DSL ACE II Car, registration No. UK08L6272 from the opposite party No. 2-M/s Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd.-authorized dealer of Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 25.04.2008.  There is no dispute that the complainant availed three free services from the authorized dealer within warranty period and some defects were removed and some parts were replaced by the dealer. The main dispute is that whether there is any manufacturing defect like low pick-up, noise in engine and door setting etc. for which the opposite parties are responsible for either replacing the vehicle or to pay the cost of vehicle to the complainant, as per directions of the District Forum, Haridwar.

8.       Learned counsel for the appellant-M/s Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. in First Appeal No. 105 of 2013 has submitted that the entire findings of the District Forum are vague.  The District Forum exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it.  Impugned judgment is perverse, illegal and is purely non-speaking and is unjust and is liable to be set aside. The District Forum has erred in not going through the written statement filed by the opposite parties as well as affidavit and evidence filed by them.  The District Forum has erred in not considering the fact that the respondent had failed to comply with the order dated 16.08.2012 of this State Commission in First Appeal No. 89 of 2010; Dee Dee Motors vs. Ms. Nujhat and Ors., whereby this Commission had directed the complainant to produce cogent and reliable expert evidence regarding manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Since the alleged report of some Garage “S.G. Motors” can neither be treated as an expert evidence nor cogent and reliable.  Since on the face of it, it is vague and absurd.  Neither the name of the person who signed the report has been given nor his qualification has been mentioned, to treat the same to be expert report.  Even otherwise, the mere perusal of the alleged report would revealed that S.G. Motors are neither authorize workshop of Hindustan Motors Ltd. nor authorized to conduct repairs or services, but since after the purchase of said vehicle, they were unauthorisedly conducting check-ups and services etc.  Since 06.10.2008 till 29.01.2013, clearly against the warranty norms and this ground itself was sufficient for dismissal of the complaint.  The District Forum had erred in not considering the fact that the appellant-opposite party No. 2 had in furtherance of the direction of this Commission produced evidence in rebuttal of a technical expert being Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Surveyor, Loss Assessor, Investigator and Valuer Licensed from IRDA, Hyderabad, who vide report dated 06.03.2013 had clearly up-held “there were no manufacturing defects found in any component of the vehicle”, which has clearly been ignored in the impugned judgment. The District Forum had erred in not considering the fact that the vehilce had covered 29128 KMs as on 07.03.2013 and had there been any alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it could had not covered such a distance.  The District Forum had erred in not considering the fact that the vehicle was in perfect running condition and merely the bald allegation of respondent-complainant, that she was not satisfied with the repair, cannot be made the basis of the award for replacement of the vehicle.  The District Forum had failed to consider the fact that no deficiency in service had been caused by the appellant and even the appellants had provided all the services well in time and replaced the parts as were desired from time to time.  The District Forum had erred in ignoring the fact that no expert evidence had been filed by the complainant and merely believing the version of the complainant and unauthorized workshop, clearly makes the impugned judgment erroneous and against the settled principles of law.  It is well settled principle that for the change of part, replacement of the entire vehicle or cost of the vehicle cannot be allowed.  

9.       Learned counsel for the appellant-Director, C.K. Birla in First Appeal No. 160 of 2013 has submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is patently erroneous, factually wrong, arbitrary, illegal and without proper appreciation of the fact of law.  The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that the order dated 16.08.2012 passed in First Appeal No. 215 of 2010 by the State Commission, wherein and whereas the State Commission has given direction to the District Forum that the District Forum should afford an opportunity to the complainant to produce cogent and reliable expert evidence in order to show as to whether the vehicle, in fact had been suffering with manufacturing defect or not.  The appellant-opposite party No. 1 shall also be provided an opportunity to rebut the evidence so adduced by the complainant and only thereafter the District Forum shall record its finding as to whether the complainant is entitled to replace or the refund of the price of the vehicle. But the District Forum without considering the above direction of State Commission passed the impugned order, which is perverse and untenable in the eyes of law and as such liable to be set aside. The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that the observation and specific direction given by the State Commission that equal opportunity to the appellants to produce evidence or rebut the evidence produce by the complainant in the subject matter shall be given.  But this has been not done by the District Forum and only on the basis of mere reliance on the expert opinion report submitted by the complainant passed the perverse order. The District Forum has failed to take into consideration of Section-13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the proper procedure which should have been followed by the District Forum with the concurrence of both sides and to go by the opinion of such expert after giving the party due opportunity to place their representation before the District Forum in respect of such opinion and, if necessary, even to cross examine the expert.  But the District Forum failed to in following the aforesaid provision of law and also the direction of State Commission. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum on the basis of expert opinion report dated 29.01.2013 in accordance to the choice of the complainant is material irregularity and a clear cut violation of the aforesaid mandatory provision of Section-13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as well as the direction of the State Commission.  The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that the expert opinion report submitted by the complainant before the District Forum is not from the authorized engineer and also not supported with any affidavit in relation to the expert. The District Forum has failed to consider that the present case has been remanded back by the State Commission for expert opinion with regard to some manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle. The District Forum has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2013 on the basis of unreliable report of so called engineer of unauthorized S.G. Motors, Haridwar, without mentioning name and qualification of the expert reporter, as well as in absence of affidavit of such report. The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that the report dated 29.01.2013 prepared by the mechanic of S.G. Motors, Haridwar is not expert opinion report, as he had not authorized engineer in the automotive field and he had failed in giving the details of the defect mere writing the defect of extra sound in engine, due to alignment problem tyre getting damage and excessive fluttering in engine and as well the door of the subject vehicle got automatically opened while plying are not sufficient to constitute the expert opinion and further he failed in mentioning as qualification, experience in the automotive field and further the report is not accompanied with affidavit.  Therefore, the aforesaid report is unreliable being prepared and direction and choice of the complainant in violation of the mandatory provision of law and the direction of the State Commission.  The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that there are different types of defect can be in the subject vehicle which could be rectified.  But, herein the District Forum without going to these aspects and only on the basis of technical expert report submitted by the complainant with related to the subject vehicle that it had some manufacturing defect, which cannot be rectified, decided the case.  The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that the pick-up problem, sound in engine, alignment and door problem of the subject vehicle are trivial in nature and all these are not inherent problem. These problem can be rectified and as such the order of the District Forum is perverse and arbitrary. The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that in case of inherent defect/manufacturing problem of the subject vehicle, if after replacement of some spare parts it can be rectified in those circumstances the subject vehicle in toto cannot be ordered to be replaced or refund of the price of the subject vehicle.  In case some defects were in the subject vehicle, which were also rectified.  The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that it is well settled law that the replacement of the vehicle or refund of the cost of the vehicle can be only made when the subject vehicle defects are not possible to rectify. 

10.     Learned counsel for the appellant-Ms. Nujhat in First Appeal No. 177 of 2013 has submitted that the District Forum has erred in passing the order that the subject vehicle was having manufacturing defect since purchase.  The District Forum has not applied its judicial mind and passed impugned order, which is not vested in it.  The District forum has not considered that the complainant filed consumer complaint in the year 2008 and the complainant is spending money during this appeal filed by the respondents. The District Forum has not considered that respondents have not filed any evidence to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle. The impugned judgement and order passed by the District Forum is incomplete order.  Due to defective vehicle, the appellant-complainant had faced so many problems and faced harassment also.  The appellant has submitted that this appeal be modified and complete and fair order be passed. 

11.     This State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while passing order in First Appeal No. 89 of 2010; Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ms. Nujhat and another and First Appeal No. 215 of 2010; C.K. Birla, Director vs. Ms. Nujhat and another, has discussed a case Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC).  In this case, the Hon’ble National Commission has laid down the law that onus to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle lies on the complainant and further that expert evidence need to be produced to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  In the reported case, it was held that the vehicle having been repeatedly brought to service station for repairs, is no ground to hold that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect.  Even if it is assumed that the vehicle was carrying the defects mentioned by the complainant in the consumer complaint, then also unless it is established by cogent and reliable evidence that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect, the complainant is not entitled to a new vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle only on the basis of finding recorded by the District Forum in its order that the defects pointed out by the complainant have been removed and, thus, the vehicle was free from any defect/shortcoming. Hence, in this situation, the question of giving new vehicle to the complainant or refunding its price does not arise.  Further, this State Commission had held in that order and judgment dated 16.08.2012 that the intent of legislature of promulgating the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to secure and protect the interest of the consumer and we think that in the instant case, it was the duty of the District Forum to have afforded an opportunity to the complainant to establish this aspect that the vehicle was, in fact, suffering from manufacturing defect by producing cogent and reliable evidence. The State Commission remanded back this matter with a direction that the District Forum should afford an opportunity to the complainant to produce cogent and reliable expert evidence in order to show as to whether the vehicle, in fact, had been suffering with manufacturing defect or not.  The appellants-opposite parties shall also be provided an opportunity to rebut the evidence so adduced by the complainant and only thereafter the District Forum shall record its finding as to whether the complainant is entitled to replace the vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle. In compliance of the order of this Commission dated 16.08.2012, the District Forum has directed the complainant to file expert report.  The complainant filed expert technical report of S.G. Motors, Bye pass road, Sitapur, Jwalapur, Haridwar (paper No. 31/2 on the District Forum’s record) and thereafter the case was fixed for arguments on 22.02.2013.  In rebuttal, the appellant-opposite party-Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. had also filed a technical expert report of IRDA approved surveyor Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, B.Tech, MBA (paper No. 40/2 on the District Forum’s record).  Neither the complainant nor opposite party have filed affidavit in support of their reports before the District Forum.  Further, during this appeal, both the parties were directed to file affidavit in support of their technical expert report for which Sh. Vineesh Mehta has filed affidavit in support of his report filed before the District Forum and Sh. Kuldeep Kumar has filed affidavit in support of his technical expert report filed before the District Forum.

12.     Now, we have to see whether there was any manufacturing defect in the aforesaid vehicle on the basis of respective technical expert reports of both the parties.  So far expert report of S.G. Motors, Government approved garage and service station, Bye pass road, Sitapur, Jwalapur, Haridwar is concerned, the expert opinion report submitted by the complainant before the District Forum is not from authorized engineer.  There is no qualification mentioned in the report about expert reporter.  This person, who is having no technical qualification, has failed in giving the details of the defects.  Mere writing the defect of extra sound in engine, due to alignment problem tyre getting damage and excessive fluttering in engine as well as door of the vehicle are not sufficient to constitute the expert opinion.  There is no mention in this report that what experience in the automotive field, this person Vineesh Mehta held.  In this way, this expert report is not reliable.  On the other side, the appellant-Dee Dee Motors has produced technical inspection report of   Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Surveyor, Loss Assessor, Investigator and Valuer dated 06.03.2013.  This expert is IRDA licensed surveyor.  In a forwarding letter Dee Dee Motors has explained that the subject vehicle was met an accident on 28.08.2009.  This vehicle is now five years old and it is already covered 27000 Kms. up to 29.01.2013 and 29128 up to 06.03.2013.  In the technical expert report, Sh. Kuldeep Kumar has mentioned that he inspected the vehicle and took 4 Kms. test drive driven by the customer representative (owner’s brother) alongwith company’s technical representative and has observed the following facts:-

(i) During the test drive there were no abnormal noise from the engine.

(ii) The pickup was found normal (As per the model of the vehicle).

(iii)The A.C. was running satisfactory.

(iv) All the four doors operated normally.

(v) There were no manufacturing defects found in any component of the vehicle.

          Moreover, the body was found in roughly repaired condition all over the body.

In the affidavit (paper No. 44 in First Appeal No. 105 of 2013) Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, authorized surveyor, loss assessor, investigator and valuer having qualification of B.Tech and MBA has also deposed in support of his technical expert report that the deponent is having the vast experience of assessing vehicles of all makes since 5 years and on the request of the DD Motors Pvt. Ltd., the Deponent went to Haridwar with Sh. Ashish Vashistha, G.M., Service, DD Motors at the resident of one Ms. Nujhat and she was requested to get the vehicle No. UK08-L-6272, road tested and inspected by the undersigned in compliance of the order of State Commission dated 16.08.2012.  Ms. Nujhat had introduced her brother who had taken the vehicle alongwith Sh. Ashish Vashistha and the deponent for test drive, for about 4 Kms. and accordingly the vehicle was not only test driven, but also thoroughly inspected by the deponent and in furtherance thereto the deponent had prepared his technical inspection report dated 06.03.2013.  He has deposed on oath that there was no abnormal noise and the vehicle was running satisfactory without any manufacturing defect.

13.     We have perused the impugned order and judgment dated 18.03.2013.  The District Forum has only discussed the technical expert report of S.G. Motors, Jwalapur, Haridwar, whereas this Commission had directed the District Forum that the District Forum shall provide an opportunity to the complainant to produce cogent and reliable expert evidence and forum below shall provide an opportunity to the appellants-opposite parties to produce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence so adduced by the complainant and thereafter the District Forum shall pass a reasoned order.  The District Forum has complied this order of State Commission and, therefore, both the parties have filed their respective expert reports, but in the order impugned, the District Forum has never discussed the report of Dee Dee Motors filed in rebuttal against the expert report of complainant. From the perusal of the expert reports filed by the parties, we are of the view that the expert report filed by Ms. Nujhat is by S.G. Motors.  This report was given in favour of the complainant by one Sh. Vineesh Mehta, who has not disclosed any technical qualification.  From the report of S.G. Motors, it is not clear whether Sh. Vineesh Mehta is an owner of this garage or a mechanic or a technical expert.  In the report or in the affidavit filed by Sh. Vineesh Mehta, no technical qualification of Sh. Vineesh Mehta has been mentioned. Therefore, we cannot find Sh. Vineesh Mehta a technical expert.  On the other side, technical expert report filed by Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, an IRDA approved licensed surveyor and loss assessor, is having a qualification of B.Tech and MBA, who had inspected the vehicle and took 4 Kms. test drive, driven by brother of the complainant and he found no abnormal noise from the engine, a pick-up was found normal, A.C. was running satisfactory and all the four doors were operated normally, therefore, there were no manufacturing defects found in any component of the vehicle. From the perusal of the expert reports, we have found that the technical expert report filed by the appellant-Dee Dee Motors by Sh. Kuldeep Kumar is a reliable expert report, whereas the report submitted by the complainant is not cogent  and reliable. 

14.     Learned counsel for the appellant-Dee Dee Motors has placed reliance on a judgment of this Commission passed in First Appeal No. 43 of 2011; Commercial Motors vs. Smt. Jeevanti Devi and another and First Appeal No. 44 of 2011; Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Smt. Jeevanti Devi and another.  In the said judgment, this Commission while discussing the case C.N. Anantharam vs. Fiat India Ltd.; IV (2010) CPJ 56 (SC) passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Atul Bharadwaj and another; I (2009) CPJ 270 (NC) and Scooter India Ltd. vs. Manjulaben Kiritbhai and others; III (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), has held that the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and recording an incorrect finding, erred in allowing the consumer complaint. In C.N. Anantharam (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that apart from complaint relating to noise from engine and gear box, there was no other major defect. It was held that the vehicle had been duly certified to be completely roadworthy and the complaints of the complainant were duly attended.  In Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the vehicle was taken to service station on many occasions and complaints were duly attended and rectified.  It was held that inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle are not proved and the order regarding refund of value of vehicle was without justification and was set aside. Similarly in the case of Scooter India Ltd. (supra) the complainant failed to discharge onus of proving manufacturing defect.  In view of the above, this Commission has allowed both the appeals. In a case of Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr.; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that onus to prove manufacturing defect lies on complainant - Vehicle repeatedly brought to service station for repairs, no ground to hold that vehicle suffering from manufacturing defects.  In another case Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr.; I (2006) CPJ 3 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that request for replacement of car having manufacturing defects – Obligation of respondents under warranty only to repair or replace any part found to be defective – High Court not justified in directing replacement of vehicle.  We found force in the citations placed before us.

15.     For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and recorded an incorrect finding, erred in allowing the consumer complaint.  The order impugned being not sustainable in the eye of law, is liable to be set aside and First Appeal No. 105 of 2013; Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ms. Nujhat & another and First Appeal No. 160 of 2013; Director, C.K. Birla vs. Ms. Nujhat & another are, thus, fit to be allowed. First Appeal No. 177 of 2013; Ms. Nujhat vs. Director, C.K. Birla & another for a relief of modification in the impugned order and judgment dated 18.03.2013 in the aforesaid circumstances, is liable to be dismissed.

16.     In view of the above, appeal Nos. 105 of 2013 and 160 of 2013 are allowed and appeal No. 177 of 2013 for modification of impugned judgment and order is dismissed.  The order impugned dated 18.03.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 333 of 2008 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

17.     The amount of Rs. 25,000/- each deposited by both the appellants-Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Director, C.K. Birla at the time of filing the appeal and 50% of the awarded amount deposited by both the appellants-Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Director, C.K. Birla for staying the order be released in their favour.

18.     Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 160 of 2013 and First Appeal No. 177 of 2013.