APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate With Petitioner in person For the Respondent Mr. S. D. Kale, Asstt. Manager For the Respondent NEMO/Ex-parte PRONOUNCED ON : 9th DECEMBER 2013 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This is a revision petition against the impugned order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 2019/2006, aulat Singh Singhvi versus Managing Director, Bajaj Auto Limited,vide which while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Forum on 10.10.2006, in consumer complaint No. 209/2005, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld. This petition has been filed as an appeal against the impugned order of the State Commission dated 09.07.2010, but it is being decided as a revision petition, because there is no provision for filing a second appeal, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased a Bajaj Sapphire scooter from M/s. Mewar Motors, respondent no. 2/OP no. 2 on 29.12.2001 for `36,360/-. The said vehicle was registered vide registration no. RJ27/9M 8980. It has been alleged in the complaint that the said scooter started giving problems after two months of purchase, for which complaints were filed with the dealer, OP No. 2, from time to time. The vehicle was got repaired from the dealer with great difficulty, but it could run properly only for 15 days, and again started giving problems. The complainant alleged that the vehicle was defective from the very beginning and he claimed an amount of `64,348/- through the consumer complaint in question, including expenses for maintenance and repairs, mental harassment, transport cost etc. The District Forum vide their order dated 10.10.2006 concluded that the complainant had failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle, and hence, the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. An appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was also dismissed and the order of the District Forum was upheld. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 3. In the revision petition, it has been stated that respondent no. 1 is Managing Director, Bajaj Auto Limited, Pune through M/s. Mewar Motors, Udaipur who is the dealer. M/s. Mewar Motors, Udaipur has also been impleaded as party as respondent no. 2 in proceedings before District Forum as well as before the State Commission. However, M/s. Mewar Motors has not put in appearance before the District Forum, State Commission and even before this Commission. On behalf of respondent no. 1, Managing Director, Bajaj Auto Limited, appearance has been made directly before this Commission, and not through M/s. Mewar Motors. 4. At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the grounds of the revision petition, saying that the said vehicle started giving regular problems from the very beginning and hence, there is manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. The complainant had taken the vehicle many times to the dealer and job-cards were made every time and repairs were also carried out from time to time, but this fact has been totally ignored by the lower courts while arriving at their conclusion. 5. On the other hand, respondent no.1 stated that the complaint had been made on 15.12.2005, i.e., more than four years after the purchase of the vehicle and hence it is barred by limitation. 6. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. From the facts on record, it is made out that the vehicle in question, was purchased by the petitioner on 29.12.2001, but the consumer complaint in question, has been filed on 15.12.2005, i.e., more than four years after the purchase of the vehicle. The complainant has tried to show that he has been taking the vehicle to the dealer/respondent no. 2 for repairs etc., but he has not been able to give any reasonable explanation as to why the said complaint could not be filed within time. Under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the consumer complaint has to be filed within a period of two years from the date of cause of action. This revision petition is, therefore, clearly barred by time and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further, a perusal of the facts on record show that the vehicle is in running condition and there is no evidence on record that there is any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. 6. In fact, the respondent no. 1 sent a letter to the petitioner dated 28.03.2003 and requested him to get in touch with the dealer, in case he was facing any problem regarding the running of the vehicle. It is quite apparent, therefore, that the State Commission and District Forum have carried out right appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record and decided to dismiss the consumer complaint. We have no reasons to differ with the findings of the State Commission and District Forum because we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by them. The present revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are upheld. Sd/- (K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER