Heard both the parties; considered.      

2.      This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the Respondents / Opposite Parties challenging the impugned order dated 29.06.2020 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad, Mumbai, in First Appeal bearing No. 161 of 2015. Vide such order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal while setting aside the order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nanded, in Complaint No. 227 of 2012.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant, relying upon the Opposite Party No.1, had booked a Safari EX vehicle for Rs.7,80,206/- on 12.10.2006 by paying Rs.50,000/-. The Complainant purchased the said vehicle on 19.10.2006 by obtaining finance from Vaidyanath Urban Bank and also insured it with ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. for 3 years. It was the case of the Complainant that the said vehicle suffered from various defects from the first day. It was contended that the vehicle made noise from rear side; the rear doors and the front door were not opening from the inside; the AC had stopped working and the vehicle was not starting immediately. Therefore, the vehicle was inspected by Opposite Party No.1’s expert persons and engineers; however, they were unable to remove the defects. Thus, the vehicle was taken to the showroom at Nanded and a letter dated 13.11.2006 was issued in this regard. The Complainant on 15.11.2006 had informed the Opposite Party No.1 that the vehicle had manufacturing defects and the said vehicle was a demo vehicle and on 02.12.2006, he requested them to either give a new vehicle or the consideration price of the vehicle along with miscellaneous expenses incurred. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainant that the vehicle was repaired and more than once requested him to take it.  However, the Complainant replied to Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 26.12.2006 and contended that the vehicle was to be repaired within 15 days from purchasing. Therefore, now, the Complainant had lost trust on TATA Safari Ex as the Complainant had spent Rs.9,00,000/- on the vehicle. However, he was unable to use the vehicle and had to suffer mental harassment. The Opposite Party No.1 again on 20.03.2007 and 08.05.2007 requested the Complainant to take the vehicle  However, the Complainant wanted a new vehicle and the Opposite Party No.1 neither gave a new vehicle nor paid the price and expenses. Therefore, the Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint no. 166/2016 before Ld. District Forum, Beed which was allowed vide order dated 25.06.2007. Consequently, the Opposite Party No.1 had filed an Appeal no. 572/2007 before the Ld. State Commission, Aurangabad which was allowed vide order dated 20.04.2012. Therefore, a Revision Petition no. 1985/2012 was filed before this Commission by the Complainant wherein this Commission vide order dated 26.09.2012 had directed the Complainant to make TATA Motors as Opposite Party No.2 and to file a fresh Complaint before the proper forum within 60 days. Therefore, the Complaint bearing no. 227/2012 was filed before the Ld. District Forum, Nanded seeking payment of Rs.8,68,510/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization, Compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as Litigation Expenses.             

 4.     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 vehicle was repaired by the answering Opposite Party when it was brought to them and after repairs, the Complainant was requested vide letters dated 27.11.2006 and 02.12.2006 to take the delivery of the vehicle. It was further contended that the parts (AC pipe) were replaced free of cost during the warranty period. It was further contended that there was no major breakdown in the vehicle and the reasons for which the vehicle came to the Opposite Party No.1 were very trivial and there was nothing wrong in the vehicle that could not have been repaired. Therefore, it was submitted that there was no question of changing the vehicle or refund. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. 

5.      The Ld. District Forum had noted in its order dated 03.12.2014 under para 5 that the Opposite Party No.2, in spite of having appeared in the Court, had failed to file any Reply.

6.      Further, the Ld. District Forum vide order dated 03.12.2014 had partly allowed the Complaint while observing that the vehicle in question had defects and directed the Opposite Party No.2 to pay Rs.7,80,206/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 19.10.2006 and Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical harassment.

7.      Aggrieved by the above order, First Appeal bearing No. 161 of 2015 was filed by Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 against the remaining parties before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit bench at Aurangabad. The said appeal along with Application for condonation of delay was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2015 which was challenged before this Commission in RP 1826/2015. This Commission had allowed the Revision vide order dated 12.10.2017 on the ground that the delay in filing the Appeal by the manufacturer was minimal and consequently, the matter was remanded back. Thereafter, the Ld. State Commission vide impugned order dated 29.06.2020 had allowed the Appeal after setting aside the order of Ld. District Forum and had observed inter alia -

“…16. In our opinion, the District Forum has rightly observed that for certain problems the vehicle was towed and taken to the opponent no.1 workshop and required 14 days in repairing the vehicle. However, we do not agree with the observation of the District Forum that a huge period of 14 days required for repairing and therefore denial of the complainant to take the delivery of the vehicle is justified. In our opinion the District Forum has failed to understand the case in its proper perspectives. It cannot be expected that a new vehicle will not show any problem. It cannot be expected that the vehicle will not require any type minor repairing concerned with any part/s. However, any such problem cannot be attributable to manufacturing defects. It cannot be denied that in making of automobile type of vehicle/ car, there involves assembling of several mechanical parts. Therefore, some period for synchronization among the parts is required while operating of such vehicle. And therefore, there may occur necessity of change/ replacement of some parts. All this cannot be taken for manufacturing defects. The warranty period is provided by the manufacturer. On behalf of the manufacturer, the dealer is required to replace the parts during the warranty period and also to offer free servicing. The District Forum did not verify as to whether the defects are mechanical or manufacturing defects.  

17. In W.S. of opponent No. 1 dealer has replied that after due repairs complainant was asked to take possession of vehicle vide their letters dated 27.11.2006 and 02.12.2006. The Complainant admitted in the Complaint that the opponent asked him to take delivery of vehicle on 20/03/2007 and 08/05/2007. The District Forum has also observed that the opponent no.1 asked the complainant to take delivery of vehicle on 27.11.2006. It appears that the complainant refused to take the delivery on the ground that the vehicle required repairing within 15 days of purchase, alleging it as manufacturing defect.

However, as discussed in earlier paras, there is no expert evidence produced on record for the alleged manufacturing defect. The defects alleged to be manufacturing defects are of mechanical in nature and which are resolved in November, 2006 only. Therefore, the act of complainant is not justified, in refusing the delivery of the vehicle after repairs and asking for cost of vehicle. There appears no deficiency in service on the part of opponents. Therefore, with the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that the Forum has committed error in directing to refund the amount. Hence there requires interference in the order. We therefore answer the points accordingly and pass following order...”

8.      Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the above-mentioned impugned order of the Ld. State Commission.

9.       It is undisputed that within a month from the date of purchasing the vehicle on 19.10.2006, the Complainant was unable to start the same, even after pushing it. On complaining to the Opposite Party No.1/the present Respondent No.2, the vehicle was got examined by its team on 12.11.2006 and taken for repairs. On 2.12.2006 the said Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the vehicle was repaired, and requested him to take it back at the earliest. Such request letters were also issued subsequently on 20.03.2007 and 08.05.2007. But, in the entire Complaint, (Annexure P-2) in the Revision Petition it seems that at no point of time the Complainant appears to have responded to such letters/requests from the side of the Opposite Parties, much less to spell out any reasons why he was not willing to take back the vehicle. In such circumstances, the vehicle remained in the custody of the Opposite Party itself, and even till today the position remains the same.

10.     Now, in Para No.9 of his Written Submissions filed in this Commission, the Complainant/Petitioner has mentioned –

“Neither did the Dealer nor Manufacturer filed an application U/S 13 for appointment of expert examining the status of the vehicle in question to disprove the case of the Petitioner that there is manufacturing defect. The Petitioners case of manufacturing defect as averred is conceded by the Dealer and hence no strict proof of rules of evidence is required in Fora.”

11.     It is, therefore, a clear case in which custody of the vehicle was not taken back by the Complainant in spite of the same being offered to him with the intimation that it had already been repaired. The Complainant, therefore, would appear to have taken upon himself the mantle of a mechanical expert by holding that the vehicle had some “Manufacturing” defect(s), since he had faced certain problems with its running within the first month from its date of purchase. His stress on the need for examination of the vehicle by an Expert under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act is, therefore, unreasonable, since the custody of the vehicle had remained with the Opposite Parties only due to the Obdurance of the Complainant to accept the same. It is a well settled principle of jurisprudence that a Complainant/Plaintiff has to stand on his own legs in proving his case, and the weakness/omission, if any, in the defense of the other side in itself can not lead to any automatic presumption in favour of the claimant.

12.     The Ld. State Commission in its impugned Order had well appreciated this logic and found that non-acceptance of delivery of the vehicle after the claim of the same having been repaired satisfactorily by the Opposite Parties, without any tangible reason was not justified, nor sufficient in itself to hold that the vehicle necessarily suffered from any manufacturing defect, in the absence of any examination of the same being conducted by an Expert, of which the burden of proof was only on the Complainant himself.

13.     This Commission, therefore, finds no grounds to interfere with the Impugned Order.

14.     The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

15.     No Order as to costs.