ORDER

1. This Review Petition has arisen out of order dated 8.8.2024 passed by this District Commission in complaint case titled as Narayan Singh   Vs  M/s Bhalla Automobiles.
2. We have heard the petitioner’s counsel and perused the record.
3. Petitioner has stated that the complainant, op in the present review petition had purchased a tractor from op for Rs.682000 on 11.04.2015 and prayed for removal of the defects or  replacing the tractor but it was avoided by the op whereby he suffered a loss of the amount Rs. 200000.  The impugned judgment and order dated 8.8.2024 were passed against the petitioner against which this review petition has been preferred.
4. Petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 8.8.2024 on the ground that the complainant had simply pointed out the defects which could be repaired and no manufacturing defect was pointed out in the tractor and order for payment of the amount Rs.682000 could be passed only when there was any manufacturing

defect in the tractor and thus there is an error apparent on the face of impugned judgment and order. In case of manufacturing defect, the manufacturer is liable and no order could be passed in absence of the manufacturer who was the necessary party in the case and non impleadment of the manufacturer is an error apparent on the face of the record. Complainant was under obligation to bring the tractor to the authorized service provider for removal of the defect but no specific date for brining the tractor to the service provider was mentioned in the complaint and it amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. As the specific dates for bringing the tractor at the service provider for removal of the defects were not mentioned and therefore no cause of action could be said to have arisen to file the complaint and it was a mistake or error in passing the impugned judgment as this was the material fact which was overlooked. It was also necessary to disclose the warranty policy to obtain the relief of payment of the value of the tractor in case of manufacturing defect and this fact was not taken into consideration while passing impugned judgment and it is an error on the face of the record.     

5. We have thoroughly considered the points challenging the impugned judgment and order and we find that the points alleged by the petitioner were the material points which were necessary to take into consideration while passing the impugned judgment and order. Having taken into consideration the points raised by the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that there was a mistake or error on face of the record while passing impugned judgment and order. In view of law laid in Lilly Thomas V/s Union of India AIR, 2000 SC 1650 the power of review can be exercised for correction of the mistake. Thus the review petition deserves to be allowed.          
6. The review petition is hereby allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 8.8.2024 are hereby set aside.