Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member

1. An application under Section 22(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for review of Order dated 27.02.2026 passed by this Commission, has been preferred on behalf of applicant M.G. Motors / Authorized Dealer (Respondent No. 2 in the Revision Petition No. 248 of 2018 and OP-2 in the original complaint), whereby Revision Petition was disposed of in following terms:-

                          "In view of above, we modify the Order passed by the learned State Commission and hold OP-1 and OP-2 jointly and severally liable to repair the car at their cost and provide the same in a road-worthy condition to the complainant, within a period of four weeks of passing of this Order.

                          Further, since vehicle is lying un-serviced with the dealer/service centre since 2010 and the complainant has been unable to use the vehicle for the last 15 years after purchase, we hold the OPs jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2 lacs with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within a period of four weeks. In case the aforesaid amount is not paid to the complainant within stipulated period, the same shall be payable with interest @9% per annum from the date of default till realization."

2. The Review Application has been filed reiterating the factual and legal position as was argued on behalf of Respondent No. 2 / Applicant. Reference is also made to letter dated 17.01.2013 issued by complainant to the opposite parties to comply with the directions passed by the Ld. District Forum vide Order dated 15.01.2013, followed by reply dated 08.02.2013, legal notice dated 15.03.2013 and Inspection Report dated 16.06.2014 issued by Review Petitioner. It is reiterated that much after the compliance of the directions, complainant had approached the Ld. State Commission by way of Appeal in May / April, 2013 and the same was not maintainable. Reliance is also placed upon judgements passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Motors & Anr. Vs. N. Siva Kumar & Anr. (2000) 10 SCC 654, Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Harpreet Singh (2024) SCC NCDRC 1767, Nagubai Ammal & Ors. Vs. B. Shama Rao & Ors. 1956 AIR 593 and Shailesh Gupta Vs. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 561 of 2020.

3. We have perused the record carefully and gone through the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant. After assessing the evidence on record a finding was rendered by this Commission in paragraph 11 of Order dated 27.02.2026 that the engine of the vehicle suffered from serious defects, as a specific stand had been taken by OP-2/Dealer in the written version that after taking the approval of the complainant half engine of the car was repaired, as it was under warranty. It was further observed that the rectification of defects which continued thereafter could not be refused by OP-2 during warranty by merely attributing that the issue was faced by the complainant due to use to poor and mixed fuel without any foundation.

4. In case the complainant remains dissatisfied with outcome of adjudication by Order of District Forum the same does not foreclose the right of the complainant to approach the Ld. State Commission in an Appeal challenging the Order passed by Ld. District Forum. Apparently, OP-2 being the authorised dealer cannot escape the liability by merely claiming that steps were taken by OP-2 for the purpose of carrying the jobs in terms of the Order passed by the Ld. District Forum. Apart from relying upon communications forwarded towards compliance for repairs, nothing is reflected by OP-2 as to which defective parts of the vehicle had been replaced and the nature of repairs which was initiated on behalf of OP-2, in compliance of Order passed by the Ld. District Forum. The same appears to be only a paper formality in the absence of exact particulars of repairs / replacement of parts being informed to the complainant.

The said grounds were kept in perspective vide order dated 27.02.2026 though the same have not been referred in detail.

5. It is well settled that the power of review can be exercised only for correction of mistake or error apparent on record but not to substitute the views. The review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal but have to be strictly confined to the scope of ambit of the statute. In the absence of any error apparent on face of record, we do not find any grounds to review the Order dated 27.02.2026. Application is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this Order be provided to the concerned parties by the Registry.