This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 23.5.2012 in appeal No.1017/2011 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal preferred by the respondents/opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Hisar and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. -2- 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant purchased Hero Honda CD-DLX Motorcycle Model 2008 from respondent No.2 Dealer on 2.2.2008. According to the complainant he observed certain problems in the engine of motorcycle. He, therefore, brought it to the notice of the respondent No.2 who serviced the motorcycle and assured that the problem was rectified. Thereafter, the petitioner again observed recurrence of same problem in the engine. He, therefore, requested opposite party No.2 to replace the engine of the motorcycle. Opposite party No.2 did not accede to the request of the petitioner. This led to the filing of the consumer complaint. 3. The respondents/opposite parties resisted the complaint and took the plea that there was no manufacturing defect in the engine and pressed for the dismissal of complaint. 4. The District Forum concerned on the basis of pleadings and the evidence adduced, allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to replace the engine of the motorcycle within 45 days and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation plus litigation expenses to the complainant. 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondents approached the State Commission in appeal and the State Commission after hearing the parties allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under: - -3- “It is not disputed that complainant purchased the motorcycle on 2.2.2008, while the local Commissioner, who was an instructor from ITI inspected the vehicle on 28.2.2011 i.e. after more than three years of purchase. Even in his report he has specifically mentioned that “there was no manufacturing defect” in the vehicle and the defects pointed out were due to “normal wear and tear”. Neither any record has been placed on the file nor complainant has pleaded that after first free service he got subsequent free services carried out, either from OPs or from any other authorized service centre of the company. When complainant himself does not mention and OPs specifically stated that after free service, complainant has not approached for subsequent services, the warrantee, if any, stood breached by the complainant himself. There is always a reason as to why the manufacturer prescribes initial services upon coverage of specific kilometers so as to bring the vehicle within the normal running schedule. No fault could be found with the OP. Complainant himself was to be blamed. Thus, learned District Forum committed a serious error in allowing the complaint. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted and impugned order is set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed.” 6. Learned Shri Paway Kumar Ray, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission is not sustainable as it is based on the report of a Technical Expert who inspected the vehicle in the year 2011. He has contended that even on reading of the report it is seen that the author of the report himself is not sure about there being any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. Learned counsel has thus urged me for setting aside of the order of the State Commission. 7. Ms. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. -4- 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that that the State Commission decided the appeal by a well-reasoned order which cannot be faulted. The order of the State Commission is based upon the report of the Local Commissioner who was an instructor from ITI. He prepared the report on the basis of the mechanical inspection of the motorcycle. The said expert after inspection of motorcycle in the 2011 vide his report dated 28.2.2011 has categorically mentioned that there was no manufacturing defect in the motorcycle and the defects found were due to normal wear and tear. Further, on perusal of copy of the impugned order, I find that the complaint is vague wherein the complainant has alleged that after the purchase of motorcycle he observed problem in the motorcycle without mentioning the exact nature of problem noticed by him. In absence of any allegation about the exact problem noticed by the complainant, it cannot be concluded that there was any manufacturing defect in the engine. Thus, under the circumstances, order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint cannot be faulted. 9. The revisional jurisdiction of this Commission flows from Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it is restricted only to the extent of jurisdictional error or material irregularity. I view of the above, there is no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. -5- 10. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
