This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 16.2.2017 in first appeal No.677/2015 whereby the State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed the consumer complaint alleging that he purchased a scooty bearing registration No.HR-36M-1408 from respondent No.1 on 14.8.2008. The scooty was supposed to run on four chargeable batteries. It is the case of the petitioner that the scooty started giving trouble from very beginning i.e. 2nd service done on 22.10.2008. On inspection it was found that the batteries were supplying insufficient current as a result of which the movement of scooty was jerky. It is alleged by the petitioner that he took the scooty for rectification of the defect to the service station of the opposite party on eleven occasions but in vain. Opposite party No.1 even replaced the battery and some components of scooty but to no effect. According to the complainant the defect in the scooty is a manufacturing defect which could not be rectified despite of best efforts. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing written statement denying the allegations. 4. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties as under: - “In view of the discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties No.1 and 3 either to replace the scooty in question with a new one or to refund its price with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its purchase till payment maximum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant is also allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs.5500/- against opposite parties No.1 & 3.” 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission, Haryana on reconsideration of the record allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. 6. Perusal of the order of the State Commission would reveal that after discussing evidence the State Commission has allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint because of following reasons: - “i) The scooty was purchased on 14.8.2008 and the complainant visited the OP with the problem in scooty on 23.10.2010 i.e. after more than two years. Till then the vehicle had already covered 5600 km and no job card whatsoever showing any repair was produced by the complainant. ii) The first complaint before the District Forum was filed on 24.4.2012 in which the only claim was refund of Rs.7450/- by way of cost of one set of batteries alone whereas in the present complaint the relief sought is total replacement of the scooty alleging manufacturing defect in the machine. This is a clear improvement in the relief sought by the complainant. iii) The warranty period of one year had already expired when the complainant approached the OP. Therefore “during the 12 months from the date of purchase for the battery in the hands of original retail purchaser.” Not only this, the complainant had himself alleged that he had purchased batteries of other companies and had also got the scooty serviced and various repairs made from different workshops. Thus, when the complainant had got the scooty repaired from unauthorized and untrained mechanic, he did not possess the necessary expertise of handling electric scooty, the OPs could not be held liable for the problem alleged to have been faced by the complainant. iv) Finally, the complainant being an Advocate was fully aware that under Section 13 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 he was supposed to have the expert opinion getting the scooty inspected with the help of the District Forum. He failed to do and has not produced any such expert opinion or evidence on the record. Therefore, in the absence of such material evidence, the OPs can not be held liable for the problems alleged to have been faced by the complainant, especially when the aforesaid submissions of the appellant have not been factually refuted on the record.” 7. The petitioner who is a lawyer has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because the State Commission has failed to appreciate the facts in correct perspective. During the course of arguments, we had asked the petitioner to show any document which may tend to show that the findings given by the State Commission are factually incorrect but the petitioner has not been able to show any such evidence which may indicate that the finding of the State Commission is faulted. State Commission has categorically held that the scooty was purchased by the petitioner on 14.8.2008 with a warranty of one year and that the complainant visited the opposite party with the alleged problem after expiry of the warranty period on 23.10.2010. We asked the petitioner to show us any job card which may indicate that prior to 23.10.2010 the petitioner had taken the scooty to the workshop of the opposite party with the subject problem but the petitioner has failed to show us the documents and he states that instead of job card only a token and a slip used to be given, which explanation is not acceptable. Thus, under the circumstances we are of the view that petitioner has filed to point out any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may prompt us to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. In view of the discussion above, revision petition is dismissed. | 
