Radha Gardens vs Volkswagen India (P) Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 203/2012 - M/s. Radha Gardens & Ors. Vs. Volkswagen India (P) Ltd. & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner booked Polo Car Diesel version on 21.4.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/ - to the OP/respondent. Complainant wanted Pepper Grey colour car, but was compelled to accept black colour car. On 9.7.2010, car was delivered to the complainant and on the same day, he found sound in the engine. Later on also he found problems in the vehicle. OP examined car and informed complainant that it was a minor problem and asked him to leave the car at workshop. Even after 3 days car was not repaired. In such circumstances, complainant got notice issued to the OPs. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 & 2 /Respondent No. 1 & 2, who are manufacturers of the car resisted complaint and submitted that there was no privity of contract between OP and complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 & 4/Respondent No. 3 and 4 admitted sale of car, but denied any manufacturing defect in the car and submitted that problem of engine sound was sorted out immediately and complainant was asked to take delivery of the vehicle, but he refused to take the delivery and wanted replacement of the car. It was further stated that OP No. 4 offered a courtesy car to the complainants during the time vehicle kept for inspection. It was further submitted that as a matter of goodwill, OP No. 4 agreed to replace the car with pepper grey colour car with extended period for further two years and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 5 to 10 did not appear before District forum. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and directed OP No.1 to 4 to replace the car with cost of 5,000/ -. Complainant filed this revision petition for refund of price along with application for condonation of delay.

RESPONDENT No. 5 to 10 were deleted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

AS there is delay of only 22 days in filing revision petition, application for condonation of delay is allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application and delay stands condoned.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner never requested for replacement of car; even then, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint and directing replacement of car; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be modified. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that inspite of the fact that there was no manufacturing defect in the sold car, OP agreed to replace the car and order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that petitioner has not placed any evidence on record to substantiate his contention that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and in such circumstances, learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint. Learned State Commission allowed complaint on the basis of respondent ''s admission that respondent is ready to replace the car with extended warranty. Paragraph 24 of the impugned order clearly reveals that complainant opted for replacement of car with a new car of highline model and State Commission rightly observed that complainant is required to pay difference amount i.e. cost of highline model minus cost of the comfort line model.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner never prayed for replacement of car, but filed complaint for refund of amount. It is true that complainant did not ask for replacement of car in the complaint, but as there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, there was no question of refund of price of the car and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint. As respondent agreed to replace the car with new car of the same colour which complainant wanted, learned State Commission allowed complaint and directed for replacement of new car of the same model or of higher model subject to payment of difference of amount.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.