S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. - (1.) This special leave petition was heard finally; Leave granted, it impugns an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission[1] (hereafter "Commission") which affirmed the order of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter "State Commission"). [1] Dated 09 January, 2020 in Revision Petition No. 1809 of 2014
(2.) The relevant facts are that that the first respondent, Antonio Paulo Vaz (hereafter "Vaz") bought a car after paying the agreed total consideration price in 2011 to the second respondent, Vistar Goa (P) Ltd, a dealer in cars (hereafter "the dealer"). At the time of purchase, Vaz availed bank credit. A 2009 model car which had run 622 kilometres was sold to him in place of a new car of 2011 make. Vaz, therefore, requested for refund of the price paid or replacement of the car with one of 2011. The price was however not refunded; neither was the car replaced. Vaz refused to take delivery of the 2009 model car. He attempted a resolution of his concern and thereafter, caused a legal notice to be issued to the dealer, as well as the appellant. Upon his grievance remaining unaddressed, he preferred a complaint before the Goa District Consumer Redressal Forum (hereafter "the district forum").
(3.) The district forum heard the appellant, which was represented, and Vaz. Despite service of notice (of the complaint) the dealer was absent and was unrepresented; it was therefore proceeded against ex pane. The district forum determined 'deficiency in service' and held the dealer and the appellant (i.e. manufacturer of the car) to be jointly and severally liable. The district forum's order, (made on 27.09.2013) noted that the car had some defects; the undercarriage of the car was "fully corrugated and had scratch marks on the body. The alloy wheels were also corrugated inside and the car also travelled almost 622 km. Also some parts such as music system was not provided although agreed." The appellant denied the facts and alleged that Vaz, the customer had been informed that the car purchased by him was a 2009 model. The district forum observed that this averment (by the appellant) was apparently incorrect because if Vaz had agreed to such an offer, he would not have refused to take the delivery of the car which was even then with the dealer; he also urged that the music system was not provided. The district forum further stated that: "the customer when he buys new vehicle, he is under the impression that a new vehicle would be defect free. And in the said case it is admitted that the said car is used vehicle, and make of 2009 but the registration was done for the 1st time in the name of the Complainant in 2011. Also the car had travelled almost 622 kms. The O.P. 2 stated that there was pre delivery test. But for this test the car travelled 622 kms?" ;