Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking replacement/refund of the price of the car on the ground that the car supplied to him ad certain manufacturing defects.  District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which, petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, in para-8 of its order, has recorded that the complainant cannot be asked to produce the expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defects as he has already suffered at the hand of the trader and to shell out more money to get the expert opinion would be rubbing salt on the wounds; that the burden to prove that the car had manufacturing defects is on the dealer/manufacturer. 

Burden to prove that there are manufacturing defects is on the person who alleges it.  Burden was on the respondent to prove that there were manufacturing defects. 

Respondent, who is appearing in person, states that there is evidence on record that there are manufacturing defects in the car but unfortunately the State Commission has not noticed the same.

Finding recorded by the State Commission is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act as well as general law of the land to the effect that burden to prove the fact is on the person who alleges the said fact.  State Commission, by making general observations, has disposed of the appeal.  Order under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 23.7.2012.

Since this is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance.