Being aggrieved by order dated 7.3.2007, passed by A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, tate Commission petitioner/opposite party no.4 (before District Forum) has filed the present revision petition. 2. Case of respondent/complainant before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Praksam (for short, istrict Forum is that he purchased Hero Honda Splendor NSP motor cycle from M/s. Associated Auto Services (O.P. No.1 before District Forum) being dealer of O.Ps. No.2 to 4 (before District Forum) for a sum of Rs.46,606/- on 26.2.2003. Within one month of its delivery, respondent noticed rust on the petrol tank and several defects in clutch cover, magnet cover, etc. These defects were brought to the notice of O.P. No.1 at the time of service on 24.03.2003. O.P. No.1 told respondent that it would rectify the defects by changing the defective parts within 24 hours. As a prudent man and believing their words, respondent waited for some time. Even at the time of second service on 28.05.2003, O.P. No.1 promised respondent that it would rectify the said defects. On 25.11.2003, O.P. No.1 engineer inspected the motor cycle and noticed some defects, but could not rectify the same. Therefore, respondent approached District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund cost of motor cycle, i.e. Rs.46,606/- with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of purchase; to direct opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.13,300/-. 3. O.P. No.1 in its counter stated, that after delivery of vehicle it rendered service to the respondent without any inconvenience to him as per manual with utmost satisfaction. There are no mechanical defects in the vehicle. Their engineers observed that there are no manufacturing defects in the engine and respondent never raised problem regarding pick up of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on its part. 4. On the other hand, O.Ps. No.2 to 4 in their counter denied allegations regarding defects alleged by the respondent in the petrol tank, clutch cover, magnet cover etc. It is stated that respondent after availing all the free services, started making frivolous complaints to O.P. No.1. Further, complaints regarding pick-up in the vehicle and rusting of petrol tank was made in September, 2003, after almost eight months of its purchase and that too after plying the same for about 8000 kms. 5. On the basis of documentary evidence filed by both sides i.e. Exs.A.1 and B.1 to B.7 and the pleadings put forward by both parties, District Forum, dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondent filed appeal before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of District Forum and directed O.Ps. No.2 to 4 alone to take back the vehicle and pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent. It also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. 7. Being aggrieved, petitioner (O.P. No.4) alone has filed this revision. 8. On 18.2.2003, at the time of arguments for admission hearing only counsel for petitioner appeared, whereas none appeared on behalf of the respondent. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the written arguments filed by both the parties and gone through the record. 10. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent has not produced any evidence much less expert evidence in support of his case. It is further contended that State Commission merely on the basis of assessed value of the vehicle by an engineer has passed the non-speaking order. It wrongly set aside the well-reasoned order of the District Forum. Further, the State Commission did not appreciate that no evidence was produced by the respondent. Merely, on the ground that respondent has stated that he is not happy with the vehicle, the order of District Forum was set aside. Learned counsel in support has also relied upon number of judgments. 11. On the other hand, respondent in its written arguments has stated that there was manufacturing defects in the vehicle which was not removed or attended to by the petitioner, despite several requests and complaints made by him. He had requested for replacement of the vehicle, but his request was turned down by the petitioner. Moreover, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. As such, present revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not maintainable. 12. District Forum while dismissing the complaint has held; 9. The main case of the complainant is that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was defective and the opposite party did not change the vehicle. It is admitted fact by the opposite party that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite party. The documents, filed by the complainant, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A8, were mainly legal notices 5 in number. The form 23 of registration certificate, warranty card, office copy of the requisition letter of the complainant only, the complainant did not file any document to show that the vehicle delivered to the complainant by the opposite parties is a defective vehicle, the document such as mechanic opinion, 3rd party opinion who is expert or the opinion of any 2 wheelers showroom. In the absence of any documentary evidence by the experts in the motor mechanic field we are unable to come to the right conclusion that the motor vehicle supplied to the complainant is a defective one. 10. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle on 26.2.2003 and the Ex.A1 owner manual with warranty card shows that the warranty period is 2 years or 30,000 Kilometers from the date of purchase. The complaint was filed on 15.03.2005 just before going to completion of the warranty period there is lapse of more than totally 2 years and 7 months. The complainant, if there is any defect, has to produce the vehicle before this forum and to show to produce the qualified mechanics opinion. The complainant requested this forum to issue new vehicle after utilizing the vehicle from 26.02.2003 after lapse of 2 years and 7 months, which is against the principles of natural justice. The complainant admittedly utilizing the vehicle till now and the vehicle is in possession and enjoyment of the complainant only. The complainant fails to produce any evidence that the vehicle is not plying properly and the vehicle is kept idle. The complainant also failed to produce any evidence that he got repairs from somewhere for manufacturing defects in the vehicle by producing any 3rd party affidavits or by producing the affidavits of the qualified mechanics. The only evidence available before this forum is that the oral evidence of the complainant only. We are in opinion that it is very much unsafe to accept the oral evidence of the complainant in awarding the relief as prayed for. 11. The complainant is failed to establish that there is deficiency in service by the opposite party and there is manufacturing defects to the vehicle, which were delivered by the opposite parties. 13. The only finding given by the State Commission, while allowing the appeal of the respondent states; e have gone through the entire record. Earlier counsel for the manufacturer, who got assessed the value of the vehicle by an engineer and stated that the vehicle is worth Rs.25,000/-. The complainant, Mr. Mallikarjuna Rao, submits that he is not at all happy with the vehicle and all the time has been lost for taking the vehicle to the showroom continuously for repairs. Taking these facts into consideration, we direct opposite parties 2 to 4 alone to take back the vehicle and pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. We also award compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. 14. Order passed by the State Commission does not give any reasons for setting aside the well reasoned order of the District Forum. Impugned order also nowhere states that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold by the petitioner to the respondent. 15. There is nothing on record to show that vehicle in question sold to the respondent was having any manufacturing defect at all. The vehicle was sold to respondent on 26.2.2003 and complaint was filed only on 15.3.2005, that is, after a period of more than 2 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle. 16. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the State Commission giving no reasons at all, is patently illegal and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, present revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint of the respondent stand restored.. 17. No order as to costs.