JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The principal question which falls for consideration is, hether there was manufacturing defect in the newly purchased car, purchased by the complainant/Respondent No.1? The facts leading to the present revision petition are these. Ashu Bajaj, respondent No.1 purchased a car Model Alto K10 from M/s. Baba Autos, Authorised Dealer, Maruti Moga Road, Ferozepur, Punjab, respondent No.2, on 10.12.2010, for a consideration of Rs.3,10,000/-. The petitioner manufactured the said car and Oriental Insurance Co., Respondent No.3, insured the said car. The car carried warranty for a period of one year. The complainant has alleged that, on 16.01.2011, at about 2.30 PM, the engine of the car suddenly caught fire resulting into total damage of the car. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were apprised of this fact. Few officials of respondent No.2 took the photographs of the car and took away the car to their workshop. It is alleged that the car caught fire due to manufacturing defect. The request made by the complainant to replace the car was not acceded to. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the District Forum on 25.01.2011. 2. The main defence of the petitioner was that there was no manufacturing defect. Respondent No.2 contended that, as a matter of fact, Ashu Bajaj had fitted non-genuine accessories in the car. That system was not having any fuse and due to that reason, the car had got burnt. Petitioner also explained that due to unwanted fittings of accessories, like stereo, amplifier, etc., in the car, the fire had broken out. It was also explained that Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No.3, was considering the matter and had not yet repudiated the claim, made by Ashu Bajaj. 3. The District Forum accepted the complaint partly and allowed cost of Rs. 2,000/- and compensation of Rs.3,000/-. The District Forum further directed the petitioner to replace the defective, burnt , damaged parts of the vehicle in question, with new ones and hand over the vehicle to the respondent, in perfectly working condition, free from all types of defects. The State Commission also confirmed the order passed by the learned District Forum. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards the Technical Report Fire case of Maruti, attended on 20.01.2011, which goes to support the case of the petitioner. However, the report further states that the vehicle had covered 612 kms only. Front Bumper was fully burnt and fog lamp was partly burnt. The vehicle was fitted with stereo and amplifier. The original writing provided by MSIL for stereo was tampered. Stereo fittings were taken directly from the battery through igh voltage/ampere fuse No short circuit in electric wires and also the electric supply from battery to dash board was found, the same were in Kcondition. The profile of customer was investigated and found no adverse observations. There was no manufacturing defect and it seemed that the fire occured due to external sources only. This report was submitted by Mr. Midhun V. Suresh, Territory Service Manager, MSIL, Mr.S.S.Bhango, General Manager (Works), Ferozepur, Mr.B.S. Mann, Bodyshop Manager, Baga Autos, Ferozepur, Mr.Prince Dua, Territory Service Manager, MSIL and is dated 20.01.2011. As a matter of fact, this report is the Carbon Copy of the affidavit submitted by Prince Dua, employee of the petitioner company. The said affidavit was sworn in May, 2010. The space for the ate was left lank For the following reasons, we do not find ourselves amenable to these arguments. 5. The factum of fire and accident was not disputed by the petitioner. Their above said report confirms the same. The car accidentally caught fire on 16.01.2011. The car was seized by the petitioner on the very same day. The petitioner kept the car in its possession for a considerable time. The complaint was filed on 25.01.2011/01.02.2011 and still the car was in possession of the petitioner. It must be borne in mind that it is the petitioner and nobody else, who is to carry the ball in proving as to why did the car catch the fire. It is evident from the report submitted by the petitioner itself that the respondent has discharged the initial onus of proof. True picture does not emerge from the above said report and a clear position does not begin to jell. To illustrate the position more vividly, the exact opinion saying, without, fs and buts should have been given. It appears that the petitioner is trying to bury its head in the sand. No attempt was made to elucidate this point. Despite the explanation given by the petitioner, the story put forward by the petitioner, remains opaque. In case it was due to stereo and amplifier, it should have been proved on the record. The vehicle remained in possession of the petitioner for a sufficient time. It could have seized the stereo and amplifier and found out the cause of fire. The car caught fire within a period of less than 40 days, during the warranty period and the car had been driven only upto 612 kms. Consequently, we will presume that it was due to manufacturing defect of the car. If the Expert report was correct, the petitioner should have informed the complainant immediately after the car was taken into the possession by the employees of their workshop, on 16.01.2011, itself. Again there was no short circuit. No defect in the stereo and amplifier was pointed out. In case, the stereo and amplifier were tampered with, there is no evidence, worth the name, that efforts were made to examine those. The complainant was not asked to produce the same for their examination. There is no evidence that the complainant had deliberately put the car on fire. In the result, we find that the petitioner has made a futile attempt to assail the orders rendered by the foras below. The revision petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is clear that any amount received from the Insurance Company, would go to the petitioner.