Judgment:
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as œState Commission?) in First Appeal No. 2648 of 2007, vide which the appeal filed by the present respondent No.1/ complainant against the order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the District Forum, Betul in complaint No. 69 of 2006 was accepted and the petitioner/opposite party was directed to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the appellant within three months.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent purchased goods carrier vehicle Pick Up Van Auto R Sun Diesel bearing No. MP 48 L 0117 from petitioner/opposite party / dealer, which was manufactured by respondent No.2 in this petition, for the purpose of self-livelihood by indulging in transport business. The said vehicle suffered from certain effects and the same was replaced by a new vehicle by the petitioner. However, it has been alleged that the new vehicle also suffered from many defects. The petitioner assured the complainant that the van will be totally repaired and changed, but they did not do anything to this effect. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint in question, but the same was dismissed by the District Forum. However, in an appeal filed by the complainant before the State Commission, the learned State Commission observed that since the complaint was made to the dealer within the warranty period, it was the duty of the dealer to attend to the same and repair the vehicle. The State Commission directed the petitioner to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the appellant within three months, failing which they shall pay to him price of the vehicle and take back the vehicle. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner moved interim application No. 2339 of 2013 for deletion of respondent No.2 as a party. The application was allowed and the name of respondent No.2 was ordered to be deleted from the petitioner. The respondent No.1 did not appear after attending some of the hearings and he was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at admission stage. He has drawn our attention to the grounds of the revision petition and stated that the vehicle did not suffer from any defect and the order passed by the State Commission was not based on a correct appreciation of facts on record and hence the same should be set aside.
5. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. Vide impugned order passed by the State Commission, it has only been stated that since the complaint was made to the dealer within the warranty period, it was the duty of the dealer to attend to the same and repair the vehicle. The petitioner was directed to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the appellant within three months. We do not find anything wrong with this order. If the vehicle is presented before the dealer within the warranty period, it is his duty to attend to the complaints, if any, and rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. In case, the dealer thinks that there is no defect in the vehicle, it can give a certificate to this effect that the vehicle is fit from all angles. Such a certificate shall be open to scrutiny by any expert/specialized agency. However, the dealer cannot escape his responsibility of attending to the complaints if made before it during the warranty period. It is clear, therefore, that the petition, in question does not have any force and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the order of the State Commission is upheld with no order as to costs.