JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainants/respondents purchased a mini door tempo from the appellant company, the purchase by one of them having been made on 20.09.2000 and by the other on 03.07.2001.  Their case is that the vehicles purchased by them from the petitioner had manufacturing defect as a result of which, they could not be used properly.  They approached the concerned District by way of separate Consumer Complaints seeking refund of the amount which they had paid to the petitioner alongwith compensation. 

2.      The complaint was opposed by the petitioner which denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicles sold to the complainants. 

3.      The District Forum, on the basis of inspection carried out by one Anil Kumar Sinha, Surveyor and loss assessor on 19.09.2010, allowed the Consumer Complaint and directed the refund of the amount which the complainants had paid to the petitioner alongwith interest at the same rate on which it was purchased from them by the bank, from which they had taken loan for purchasing the vehicles. 

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals.  The said appeals having been dismissed, the petitioner company is before this Company by way of these two Revision Petitions. 

5.      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner company that no expert evidence except the report of Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha dated 19.09.2010 was produced by the complainants before the District Forum to prove that the vehicles purchased by them suffered from a manufacturing defect.  It is also pointed out by the counsel that the inspection by Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha was carried out more than nine years after the vehicles had been purchased.  He submits that no reliance on such an old report can be placed.  This is also his submission that the complainants ought to have taken expert opinion, before instituting the Consumer Complaints.  This is also his contention that the vehicles were never brought to the authorized service centre of the petitioner company and were taken to private workshops. 

6.      On a perusal of the report on 19.09.2010, I find that he had inspected the vehicle in question on the request of the President of the concerned District Forum.  It is true that the inspection was carried out at a highly belated stage but the fact remains that the report of the expert was not assailed by the petitioner by way of cross-examination or by producing some Automobile Engineer to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicles which the complainants had purchased.  No request was made by the petitioner company to cross-examine the expert who had examined the vehicles on 19.09.2010.  The petitioner company being the manufacturer of the vehicles, it was in a position to easily rebut the report of the expert appointed by the District Forum by producing an Automobile Engineer to prove that there was no manufacturing defect at the time of sale of the vehicles, which the complainants had purchased from the petitioner.  Therefore, it would not be appropriate to discard the expert opinion, though the expert examined the vehicles at a highly belated stage. 

7.      However, the fact remains that the vehicles in question are still in possession of the complainants.  Though it is alleged that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicles, it was not alleged in the Consumer Complaints that the defects were not at all being used by the complainants.  The expert who inspected the vehicles on 19.09.2010, did not find out for how many kilometers, the vehicle had been running by the time they were inspected by him.  Therefore, it is not possible to verify to what extent the vehicles had been used by the complainants, though they have been in possession of the vehicles all along.

8.      Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that though the complainants are not entitled to refund of the price which they had paid for purchasing the vehicle, appropriate compensation needs to be awarded to them.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each as compensation to the complainants within six weeks from today failing which the said amount alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order.  Both the Revision Petitions stands disposed of.