IA/4835/2014

          Application seeking exemption from filing translated copies of the documents and impugned order is allowed.

          We have heard the petitioner/complainant, who has himself argued the case. 

The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Commission has erred in overturning the order passed by the District Forum, Raipur, whereby the respondent, i.e., the manufacturer of Honda motorcycle, was directed to replace the motorcycle (25 cc Model Shine), purchased by the petitioner on 18.8.2010.  According to the petitioner certain parts of the motorcycle got rusted within a month of its purchase and the same being an inherent manufacturing defect, the motorcycle had to be replaced with a new one.

          In our considered opinion, the Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.  Upon consideration of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that rusting of some parts was a manufacturing defect.  Thus accepting the complaint, the District Forum issued the aforenoted direction.  On appeal by the manufacturer, the State Commission, on reappraisal of the material on record, reversed the findings of the District Forum and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to establish that rust on certain parts of the motorcycle was a manufacturing defect.  The State Commission directed the manufacturer to remove the rust after proper denting and painting and also pay to the Complainant a sum of `5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony to him.

          During the course of hearing, we have put it to the complainant that having regard to the fact that the vehicle was purchased almost four years ago, it would not be possible to direct the manufacturer to replace the vehicle but even at this stage, directions issued by the State Commission can be reiterated and the manufacturer can be directed to ensure that rusted parts are properly painted/chrome-plated to his satisfaction. The petitioner outrightly rejected the suggestion.

          Be that as it may, having perused the material on record, we do not find any material irregularity in the impugned order warranting our interference in the revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.