R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT Challenge in this Revision Petition u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the), by the Complainants, is to the Order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No.154 of 2013 and First Appeal No.202 of 2013. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed both the Cross Appeals filed by the Complainants as well as the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 3 against the Order dated 31.01.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi (for short, the District Forum). By the said Order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint preferred by the Complainants, has directed the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3, jointly and severally, to deliver the duly repaired car to the Complainants on payment of balance agreed amounts of 1,50,000/- and 1,00,000/- by the Complainants; pay 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to pay 10,000/- as costs of litigation, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, as culled out from the Complaint, are that: the Petitioners/Complainants, members of an Undivided Hindu Family, purchased a Honda City Car manufactured by Honda Siels Cars India, Opposite Party No.2, in the year 1999. Unfortunately, on 26.09.2010, the said car collided with a divider near Dabri Bus Stand, New Delhi and suffered damages. On 28.09.2010, the car was taken to the Authorized Service Centre, namely, M/s. Samara Auto Max Honda Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No.3 (for short, the Service Centre) where the Surveyor and Loss Assessor appointed by the New India Assurance Company examined the car and estimated the costs of repairs at 1,31,318.30/-. Since the car was insured for a sum of 91,800/- only, he recommended reimbursement of the amount of 55,373.95/-. However, the Service Centre of the Honda Car estimated the costs of repairs approximately at 1,50,000/-. As the car had run only 37,682 kms. from the date of its purchase, the Complainants agreed to get it repaired and paid a sum of 50,000/- as advance to the Service Centre. The expected date of delivery of car after repairs was given to the Complainants as 30.10.2010. However, on the said date, when the Complainants enquired over telephone about the delivery of car, they were informed to contact after three/four days as some of the parts of the car were not available.

3. The Complainants visited the Service Center on 18.11.2010 and found that the car was still not repaired and it was lying dismantled. They were informed that the cost of repairs had been increased to 1.8 lakhs. The Complainants were compelled either to give their consent for repair of the car or to take away the car after paying the expenses of dismantling and reassembling the parts etc.. Left with no option, Complainants granted their consent for repair of the Car, however, the Car was not repaired by the Service Centre till 24.11.2010 when the Complainants were informed that the costs of repair had further increased to 2.4 lakhs as some more defects had been noticed in the Car. The Complainants strongly objected the said increase in the repair costs in arbitrary manner. However, ultimately, conceded their consent with heavy head and heart. Even still, the car was not repaired. Being fed up with the delaying tactics of the Service Centre, the Complainants sent a legal notice by registered post to the General Manger, Service Centre as well as the Manufacturer on 07.03.2011 and reminder on 08.04.2011. Vide letter dated 15.03.2011, the Service Centre, informed the Complainants that the vehicle had been duly repaired and the delivery can be taken by payment of 2,71,489/-. On receipt of response on 19.04.2011, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Service Centre demanding the retail invoice.

4. On 13.05.2011, the Complainants went to the Service Centre for taking the delivery of the repaired car along with an automobile expert. During the trial run, Complainants found many defects and deficiencies in the car which were informed to the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2 vide letter dated 16.05.2011. In the said letter, it was alleged that the good condition Steering Rack Colum, silencer and tail lights were replaced with defective ones. Since all their persuasive efforts to get repaired the car to their entire satisfaction went fruitless, the Complainants, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to them to deliver the duly repaired car in excellent condition; install the original parts of the car which were replaced with defective parts; pay jointly or severally a compensation of 5,00,000/- for hiring the private taxies due to delay in delivery of car; pay 12,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, harassment and torture suffered by them and to pay 20,000/- towards costs of litigation.

5. Upon notice, the Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties. In their joint reply, the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 3, pleaded that; (i) sanction for an expenditure of 1.8 lakh on inter-alia,

18.11.2010 and 2.40 lakhs on 24.11.2010 on repair of the car was given by the husband of the Complainant No.1 out of his free will and without any coercion; (ii) there was no delay on their part to repair the car and the job work was done within three months from the date of final sanction of the expenses; (iii) as per Clause 7 of the terms & conditions of the repair order, the Complainants were at liberty to take back the car by paying only 5% of the estimate of the repair of the car, if they were not satisfied with the estimate after dismantling of the car; however, the said option was not exercised by the Complainants; (iv) Complainants have failed to produce any evidence to show that the car was purchased in the name of Sudesh Berry in the year 1999 and it had collided with a divider of the road; (v) the estimates given to the Complainants were purely temporary in nature and were liable to be enhanced subject to the conditions of the spare parts found on dismantling of the damaged car; (vi) the Complainants were telephonically requested to take the delivery of the car on 12.02.2011, 18.02.2011 and 28.02.2011 on payment of the repair charges but they did not come forward; and (vii) no defect was found during trial run of the car.

6. Besides raising a preliminary issue about the maintainability of the Complaint on the ground that the Complainants were not the Consumers as defined in the because there was no transaction of buying goods for a valid consideration or deficiency in service on their part, the Opposite Party No.2, in its reply, pleaded on merits that the main case of the Complainants was against Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 3 for non-delivery of the vehicle after repairs and no such allegation had been made against them; the car was ready for delivery after repairs but the Complainants deliberately did not take the delivery of the same; there was no privity of contract between the Opposite Party No.2 and the Complainants entitling them to claim any compensation against them; the relationship between the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 was on principal to principal basis and each party was responsible for its own action and as there was no allegation of any manufacturing defect in the car, they had been wrongly impleaded in the Complaint.

7. On appraisal of the material available on record and the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that it was a clear case of unfair trade practice as the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 3 not only exploited the hapless Complainants to agree to the enhanced repair charges but also failed to deliver the vehicle admittedly till 27.02.2011 and accordingly directed them to, jointly or severely, deliver the duly repaired car to the Complainants on payment of balance of the initially agreed amount of 1,50,000/- i.e. 1,00,000/-; to pay 50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and 10,000/- as costs of litigation. Opposite Party No.2, the Manufacturer, was absolved from any liability.

8. Aggrieved, both the Complainants and the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 3 filed Cross Appeals before the State Commission. However, the State Commission dismissed both the Appeals observing thus:- The conduct of Opposite Party No.1 & 3 is not fair. It is clear case of unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 who not only exploited the helpless Complainants to agree to the enhanced repair charges on the ground that the damaged vehicle is in the custody of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 3 and the Complainant cannot take the vehicle in such condition. These are the circumstances, due to which Opposite Party No.1 & 3 took advantage by increasing the amount of the repair, which is not only the deficiency in service but a clear case of unfair trade practice. The affidavits which have been filed by both the parties show that from time to time the enhancement in the cost of repairs have been made by Opposite Party No.1 & 3. The District Forum has very rightly decided that Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 are guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice for enhancing the charges of repair from 1,50,000/- to 2,40,000/-. The District Forum has rightly directed the Complainants to pay 1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 3 who will thereafter deliver the vehicle in good condition. As far as grant of compensation of 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment is concerned, the same has been awarded by the Ld. District Forum after considering the documents on record by the Ld. District Forum. The same is not on lower side as is contended by Complainants. Further, grant of compensation is discretion of Ld. District Forum. The same has been exercised by the Ld. District Forum after considering all the relevant material on record. We find no reason to interfere with the same.

9. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainants for enhancement of the compensation.

10. We have heard Mr. K. P. Berry, Petitioner No.2, who had appeared in person on behalf of the Petitioners and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. Mr. Berry submitted that M/s. Samara Automax Honda Pvt. Ltd., Authorised Service Centre of Honda Siels Cars India Ltd., acted illegally and arbitrarily in not repairing the car and handing over the same at an early date as the car was taken to the Authorised Service Centre, Respondent No.3, on 28.09.2010 which has caused great pecuniary loss and mental agony and harassment to the Petitioners.

11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 & 2 submitted that the Honda Siels Cars India cannot be made liable to pay any amount whatsoever to the Petitioners for the simple reason that no manufacturing defect has been found in the car. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, however, submitted that the Petitioner is liable to pay the repairing charges as assessed by the engineers in the Service Centre, which were not paid and, therefore, the Respondent No.3 cannot be made liable to pay anything.

12. The material on record shows that the car met with an accident on 26.09.2010 when it collided with the divider and was damaged. It was taken to the Authorised Service Centre of Respondent No.3 on 28.09.2010. For one reason or the other, the car has not been repaired and every time when the Petitioner No.2 went to the Authorised Service Centre of Respondent No.3, one or the other reasons were given in escalating the cost of repair which, in our considered opinion, was not at all justified. The Petitioner is entitled for the car in question fully repaired and in running condition which he had been deprived of for the illegal and arbitrary action of the Respondent No.3 for such a long time. The car Honda City is of the year 1999. About 20 years have passed. Now, the Petitioner cannot use such an old model car. More so, the Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide its Public Notice dated 30.10.2018 have put a restriction on plying the Petrol and Diesel Vehicles, which are more than 15 years and 10 years old respectively, on the roads in NCR. For the sake of convenience, the Public Notice dated

30.10.2018 issued by the Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi is reproduced as hereunder:

Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi 5 / 9 , U n d e r H i l l R o a d , D e l h i 1 1 0 0 5 4 transport.delhigovt.nic.in DC/OPS/396/Tpt/De-Reg/Part-III/4921 Dated:October 30,2018 PUBLIC NOTICE The Honble National Green Tribunal vide its Order dated 26.11.2014 and Order dated 07.04.2015 in the matter of Vardhman Kaushik Vs. UOI & Ors. passed directions that the Petrol and Diesel vehicles, which are more than 15 years and 10 years old respectively shall not be permitted to ply on the roads in NCR and wherever such vehicles of this age are noticed, the concerned authorities shall take appropriate steps including seizure of the vehicles in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. The Honble National Green Tribunal further ordered that 15 years old vehicles are not permitted to be parked in any public area. The matter came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition(s)(c)No.13029/1985 in the case titled M.C.Mehta Vs. UOI & Ors and Honble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 29.10.2018 has passed directions that all the Diesel vehicles which are more than 10 years old and Petrol vehicles more than 15 years old shall not ply in NCR in terms of the Order of the National Green Tribunal dated 07.04.2015. The Honble Supreme Court has further directed that the vehicles violating the Order will be impounded. The list of such vehicles shall be published on the website of Transport Department and the website of CPCB. All the vehicles owners falling in this category (Petrol vehicles more than 15 years old and Diesel vehicles more than 10 years old) are hereby informed through this Public Notice that they should not ply such vehicles in Delhi/NCR failing which such vehicles will be impounded. The list of such vehicles is available on the website of the Transport Department at www.transport.delhigovt.nic.in and also will be available at the website of CPCB i.e. . www.cpcb.nic.in Dy. Commissioner (Operations)

13. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, request the Respondents Nos.1 & 2 to provide a brand new Honda City car to the Petitioners on payment of a nominal sum of 2,50,000/-. This would be towards the goodwill gesture. Balance amount towards the cost of the car may be recovered from Respondent No.3. The Revision Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. ......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER