1.       This batch of 9 Revision Petitions, by Force Motors Limited, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints and the Manufacturer of the vehicle in question, namely M4 vehicle, used as one of the modes of transportation, is directed against the common order dated 17.09.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246 & 247 of 2013.  By the impugned order, deciding in all 18 Appeals filed by the Petitioner herein and its Dealer, the State Commission has affirmed the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Yavatmal (for short “the District Forum”), in its orders, all dated 30.09.2013, in Complaint Cases No. 5/2009, 306/2008, 277/2008, 271/2008, 281/2008, 268/2008, 270/2008, 44/2009 and 221/2009 respectively, to the effect that the afore-stated vehicles purchased by all the Complainants suffered from manufacturing defects, viz. defects in gear shifting; over-heating; alignment of the tyres; clutch & pressure plates and bend in the Axle.  However, the State Commission has set aside the direction by the District Forum relating to payment of damages of ₹1,00,000/- and interest thereon to each of the Complainants.  Other directions by the District Forum have been maintained.  By the aforesaid orders, while accepting the Complaints preferred by Respondents No.1 in all these Petitions, alleging the afore-noted common defects in the subject vehicles in question, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to refund to each of the Complainants the cost of the vehicle, i.e. ₹2,35,000/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization; interest on the remaining loan amount taken by each of the Complainants from the finance company; ₹5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony; and ₹2,000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.       Since the defects alleged in the Complaints are almost similar and the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner and its Dealer, have been disposed of by a common order, these Petitions are also being disposed of by this common order.

3.       When the Petitions came up for motion hearing on 27.04.2017, the Petitioner was permitted to place on record, within four weeks, all the documents, including the job cards, which were before the lower Fora but had not been filed with these Petitions.  Since the said documents were not filed within the time granted, vide order dated 13.07.2017 last opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to file these documents within four weeks of the date of the said order.  It was clarified that no further opportunity for the said purpose shall be      granted.

4.       When the cases are now taken up for hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that since the management of the Company, manufacturing the vehicle in question, had changed hands, it has not been possible to trace out the job cards for the repairs carried out in each of the vehicles in question.  Accordingly, I have heard the learned Counsel on merits of these Petitions and perused the documents on record.

5.       Learned Counsel has strenuously urged that both the Forums below have committed material irregularity in proceeding on the premise that the defects in all the vehicles were of the same nature.  According to the learned Counsel, only one - two defects in the vehicles were common.  It is submitted that even if it is assumed that there were defects in the vehicles, the same were duly rectified to the satisfaction of the Complainants.

6.       Having carefully perused the material on record, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the learned Counsel.  Firstly, despite sufficient opportunity, the Petitioner has not placed on record the job cards in respect of the repairs, admittedly carried out in all the vehicles.  Hence, in the absence of the job cards, the nature of the defects in all the vehicles cannot be ascertained.  Moreover, the fact that the problems in the gear box and axle, vital parts for smooth running of any vehicle, had to be rectified in atleast 9 vehicles, in my view, is sufficient enough to hold that there were inherent defects in the vehicles in question.  Undoubtedly, the vehicles lacked the perfection, which was required to be maintained in relation to the vehicles, purchased by the Complainants as a source of their livelihood and had to be taken to the workshop repeatedly for repairs, which the Petitioner proudly claims to have carried out free of charge.  I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the afore-noted finding by both the Fora below, to the effect that the subject vehicles sold by the Petitioner had “defects”, falling within the ambit of wide definition of the expression “defect” in Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”).

7.       For all these reasons, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Fora below, warranting interference in the limited Revisional Jurisdiction vested in this Commission under Section 21 of the Act.

8.       Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.  It goes without saying that while refunding the cost of the vehicles in question to the Complainants, it will be open to the Petitioner to ask them to return the subject vehicles, in whatever condition these are.