Petitioner/complainant purchased a Santro car for Rs.3,55,402/- on 31.7.2002. Respondent had given warranty for two years. According to the complainant, some major defects as main oil seal leakage, starting problem, noisy silencer and non-effective AC were noticed on 14.07.2003. On 18.07.2003, he filed a written -2- complaint with the respondent, but in vain. He lodged another complaint on 23.07.2003 but, again in vain. Petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum with the grievance that despite repeated requests made by him to the respondent, the defects of the car were not removed. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to replace the engine and battery of the car. Rs.10,000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed. State Commission held that as and when the car was taken to the respondent during the warranty period, necessary repairs were undertaken to the satisfaction of the complainant; that the said fact was evidence from the Job Card; that there was no manufacturing defect. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. From the evidence pointed out, it cannot be inferred that there was a manufacturing defect in the car. Whenever the car was taken to the -3- workshop for repairs within the warranty period, necessary repairs were carried out to the satisfaction of the petitioner, which fact is indicated from the Job Card. No merits. Dismissed. | 
