PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Above noted revision petitions arise out of common order dated 29.4.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, tate Commission in Appeals No. 1033 and 1007 of 2007. 2. Brief facts are that Respondent no.1/Complainant had purchased Tata Safari bearing Registration No.PB-12-H-7840 from Hind Motors India Ltd./Petitioners in (R.P. No.2790 of 2008) on 2.1.2006 for an amount of Rs.12,70,000/-. The vehicle was manufactured in July, 2005. There was manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and it was old as well as used vehicle. Immediately after its purchase, the vehicle started developing technical snags. It was brought to the notice of the petitioners. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the petitioners 15 days after it was purchased. It was checked by the Engineer of the petitioners who noticed some manufacturing defect in the vehicle. However, the defects could not be removed. Then respondent no.1 took the vehicle to the workshop of the petitioners on 29.8.2006 and the vehicle was handed over to them. The petitioners issued the Job Card with estimate repair amount as Rs.2,25,000/-. It is alleged by respondent no.1 that he was harassed by the petitioners for about 8 months by giving defective vehicle. Respondent no.1 sent letter dated 6.12.2006 to Tata Motors/Respondent no.2 in (R.P. No.2790 of 2008) who is Petitioner in (R.P. No.4345 of 2008) requesting for the change of vehicle. In response, petitioners sent a letter dated 12.12.2006 pointing out that some alterations were got made from unauthorized dealers by respondent no.1 in the vehicle. 3. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed a complaint against the petitioners and Tata Motors in the District Forum, Ropar seeking replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle with interest @ 18% p.a. besides the amount of compensation and costs. 4. Petitioners filed the written reply. Besides preliminary objections, the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the complaint was false and not maintainable. Respondent no.1 has got it repaired from an unauthorized person and therefore, petitioners were not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The petitioners had brought to the notice of respondent no.1, vide their letter dated 12.12.2006 that there were unauthorized alterations in the vehicle. Respondent no.1 was liable to pay estimated cost of repairs of his vehicle. The estimates were also given by different workshops to respondent no.1. Since respondent no.1 had got certain parts of his vehicle repaired from unauthorized persons, therefore, the warranty clause will not apply. It was admitted that respondent no.1 had brought his vehicle to the workshop of petitioners on 29.8.2006 for repairs. An estimate was given by the petitioners to respondent no.1 who neither instructed the petitioners to repair the vehicle nor he picked up the vehicle. The vehicle was still lying in the premises of the petitioners. Therefore, respondent no.1 is liable to pay a sum of R.200/- per day towards garage charges. Legal notice was served on respondent no.1 on 15.1.2007 to pay this amount. It is denied that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect or if it was manufactured in July, 2005 or if it was an old/used vehicle. No information was given by respondent no.1 to the petitioners about any defect in the vehicle prior to 29.8.2006 nor it was brought to their workshop. Letter dated 12.12.2006 was issued by the petitioners correctly. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed. 5. M/s. Tata Motors also filed the written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was admitted that respondent no.1 had purchased a vehicle from them. The warranty terms were extended over the vehicle subject to certain obligatory terms and conditions. At the time of sale, the vehicle was defect free. The vehicle sold was neither old nor used. Respondent no.1 had not availed any initial free service or paid service in time. No defect was pointed out by respondent no.1 in the vehicle nor it was taken by him to the workshop of the petitioners prior to 29.8.2006. Non genuine parts in the vehicle were noticed by the petitioners on 29.8.2006 itself and were pointed out to respondent no.1. The vehicle was found tampered and damaged. The alterations/replacement of standard parts with non-standard parts, non-availing of services etc. were sufficient for seizure of the warranty terms. The petitioners had estimated the repair value to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- with variance of 20%. Harassment or mental tension to respondent no.1 was denied and it was pleaded that the complaint be dismissed with costs. 6. The District Forum accepted the complaint with cost of Rs.2,000/- vide its order dated 15.6.2007 and directed the petitioners to deliver a new defect free Tata Safari to respondent no.1 without charging any more cost from him or in the alternative they would return the amount charged from respondent no.1 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 2.1.2006 till the date of payment. The petitioners were given the liberty to get the amount reimbursed from Tata Motors. 7. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed (First Appeal No.1007 of 2007), whereas, Tata Motors filed (First Appeal No.1033 of 2007) before the State Commission which, vide its impugned order, dismissed both the appeals. 8. Hence, these revisions. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 10. It has been argued by Shri Riju Raj Jamwal, Advocate for Petitioners-Hind Motors India Ltd. that both the fora below have not taken into consideration as to how the petitioner who is a dealer, can be held liable for manufacturing defect. Admittedly, petitioner is not the manufacturer and is only selling the car in retail on behalf of parent company i.e. Tata Motors. Further, it is evident from the record that complainant had been using the vehicle for almost 8 months without any complaint. It is the case of the complainant also that first time he made the complaint only on 29.8.2006, as such there cannot be said to be any manufacturing defect under these circumstances. Even assuming for the sake of arguments if there is any manufacturing defect, then the manufacturer, that is, Tata Motors is liable. Lastly, it is contended that the vehicle in question was repaired by an unauthorized person and not at the authorized service centre. Thus, the warranty has become ineffective. Under these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the Tata Motors Ltd.-Manufacturer of the car in question, that mandate of Section 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ct has not been followed in the present case and there is no report any expert. Even otherwise, complainant in its complaint has nowhere alleged that there was any manufacturing defect in the car. Further, the onus to prove lies on the complainant in such cases and not on the manufacturer. Under these circumstances, impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for Tata Motors Ltd. has relied upon certain judgments also. 12. District Forum in its order held; 2. Job Card No.JC-Hind-HindMI/CD-0607-004990 was issued on 29.8.2006 i.e. the date on which the vehicle aforesaid was left by the complainant in the premises of O.Ps. 1 & 2 as per the admission made by O.Ps. 1 & 2 itself in the legal notice dt. 6.1.2007 copy of which is Ex.R4. That notice was served on behalf of M/s. Hind Motors Limited, Chandigarh through its counsel Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate upon the complainant, Lakhbir Singh, stating therein that Lakhbir Singh had brought his vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-12-H-7840 to the workshop of the said concern for repairs and that Job Card No.4990 dt. 29.8.2006 was opened for carrying out the repairs and estimate of Rs.2,25,000/- with variance of 20% was given to the complainant but he had failed to give instructions to M/s. Hind Motors India Ltd. for carrying out the repairs and that despite various reminders and letter dt. 12.12.2006 the complainant had not come forward either to instruct the O.Ps for carrying out the repairs or for lifting the vehicle and accordingly, he (complainant ) was liable to pay garage charges @ Rs.200/- per day from 29.8.2006 till the date of actual lifting of the vehicle or till the date of issuing the necessary instructions for repairing the vehicle. Letter dt. 12.12.2006, copy of which is Ex.R2, was written on behalf of Hind Motors (India) Ltd. to Lakhbir Singh, complainant regarding his Safari Dicon vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-12-H-7840. This letter was written in response to the letter written by the complainant to that concern which was received by that concern on 9.12.2006. The letter that was, thus, received by Hind Motors on 9.12.2006 was dt. 6.12.2006, copy of which is Ex.C2. In that letter the complainant had made the grouse that old used vehicle may be of the category of test drive was sold by the O.Ps. to the complainant and that ultimately, after its purchase, it had started giving starting problem and the complainant had visited the agency i.e. Hind Motors, Chandigarh and the first complaint was made by him on 29.8.2006 but despite the fact that he had visited that agency many times, the defects could not be removed and he had been made to suffer like anything and that Hind Motors had made their Job Card/Estimate dt. 2.12.2006 and had given to him an estimate of Rs.2.20 lacs unauthorizedly for getting the job done. In letter, copy of which is Ex.R2, M/s. Hind Motors had written to the complainant that said starting problem had occurred in the vehicle due to some unauthorized alterations done in the O.E. fitments. It was admitted in that letter that the vehicle of the complainant was attended at TATA Motors authorized service centre, namely, M/s. Apex Motors, Chandigah, M/s. Metro Motors, Ambala City, M/s. Anil Corporation, Chandigarh and M/s. Goyal Motors, Patiala and all of them had given the same estimate for repairs of the vehicle. It is a matter of concern that no document has been produced on the file showing any such estimate having been given by either of these concerns or by Hind Motors Ltd. (O.Ps. 1 & 2) to the complainant prior to 9.12.2006 to the effect that the defects noticed in the above vehicle could only be removed at the cost of the complainant for the reasons that he had violated the terms of the warranty as he had got some unauthorized alternations done in the O.E. fitments. It comes out from the perusal of the facts placed on the file by the parties that the vehicle that was manufactured in July, 2005 was sold to the complainant on 2.1.2006. Admittedly, old model of the vehicle was sold to the complainant. It is nowhere the set up case of the O.Ps. that the complainant was told at the time of purchase of the vehicle on 2.1.2006 that the vehicle being sold to him had been manufactured in the previous year i.e. 2005 and some concession was given to the complainant. The fact is, thus, established that old model vehicle was sold to the complainant by the O.Ps. The O.Ps. have not placed any document on the record to prove that on 29.8.2006 or immediately thereafter, the complainant was ever apprised by O.Ps. 1 & 2 that the O.Ps. were not liable to repair the vehicle for the reason that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the warranty, particularly Clause 5 thereof, by getting some alterations done from some unauthorized source. Otherwise, it is admitted that the vehicle was left in the premises of O.Ps. 1 & 2 by the complainant within the period of warranty with the complaint that it was giving starting problem. It appears that the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant despite his requests after removing the defects. The complainant had served a notice dt. 6.12.2006, copy of which is Ex.C2, and it is then that in reply to the notice the O.Ps. had told the complainant that he had contravened the terms and conditions of the warranty by getting some unauthorized alternations done in the vehicle from some unauthorized source. The estimated cost of the repair was conveyed to the complainant in the notice dt. 15.1.2007, copy Ex.R4, i.e. after the filing of the present complaint which was filed on 22.12.2006. There is no document placed on the file showing that the estimate of Rs.2,25,000/- was given to the complainant immediately when the car was left in the premises of the O.Ps.1 & 2 with the grievance that it was given starting problem. It is Job Card No. JC-HindMI/CD-0607-004990 dt. 29.8.2006 in which the O.Ps. had allegedly given the estimate of cost of repairs to the complainant. That Job Card has been placed on the file as Ex.C11 by the complainant. A perusal thereof reveals that the date of that Job Card is 29.8.2006 but no such estimate of repairs appears to have been given in that Job Card. Yet another Job Card issued by the O.Ps. has been placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C9. Its perusal shows that it is the Job Card dt.24.11.2006 and instead of clarifying the things it further complicates the same. As per this Job Card the vehicle was sold to the complainant on 3.10.2005. It prima facie means that attempt was made by putting this wrong date of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant so that the grouse of the complainant that the vehicle manufactured in July, 2005 had been sold to him on 2.1.2006 be frustrated or met with. Otherwise also as per this Job Card the vehicle bearing Chasis No.403092GUZN01672, Engine No.DICOR06 GUZ861804 sold to the complainant had been lastly attended by Dhingra Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 6.11.2006. It is not the case of the complainant that the vehicle was ever taken to Dhingra Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 6.11.2006. The stand of the complainant is that the vehicle was in the premises of O.Ps. 1 & 2 since 29.8.2006 which stands admitted by the O.Ps. in the notice, copy of which is Ex.R4 vide which garage charges @ Rs.200/- per day from 29.8.2006 onwards were demanded from the complainant by O.Ps. 13. The aforesaid discussion leads us to the conclusion that the vehicle purchased by the complainant from O.Ps. 1 & 2 on 2.1.2006 was suffering from starting problem and that fact has been admitted by the O.Ps. in letter dt. 12.12.2006 issued to the complainant wherein it was alleged that the said starting problem had occurred in the vehicle of the complainant due to some unauthorized alterations done in the O.E. fitments though it was denied in the written reply filed by the O.Ps. if there was any starting problem in the vehicle. It comes out that the O.Ps. were convinced that it was the vehicle manufactured in July, 2005 which had been sold to the complainant on 2.1.2006 without disclosing that fact to him and that the vehicle did have the starting problem obviously on account of some manufacturing defects. The O.Ps. had tried to create the defence that the complainant had got some unauthorized alterations done from some unauthorized source in the vehicle and the vehicle was, thus, out of warranty. That fact averred by the O.Ps. was bound to be proved by somewhat convincing evidence but there is no evidence of any sort led in that context except the fact mentioned in the letter dt. 12.12.2006 issued by O.Ps. that the said starting problem had occurred in the vehicle of the complainant due to some unauthorized alterations done in the O.E. fitments. Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the O.Ps. in having sold the vehicle manufactured in July, 2005 to the complainant on 2.1.2006 without disclosing that fact to him and without giving any concession for that to him stands squarely proved. In the authority reported as anmati Motors (P) Ltd. vs. Chandrasekhar2006(I) CLT 250 it has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that when an old vehicle was sold by representing it as a new vehicle there cannot be any worse kind of unfair trade practice than selling the old vehicle representing it as a new vehicle. It also stands proved on the basis of balance of probabilities that the vehicle was having starting problem which can only be on account of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The demand of the O.Ps. for the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- for removing the said defects from the complainant is totally unjustified and unlawful because it has not been proved by the O.Ps. that the complainant had definitely got some unauthorized alteration done from some unauthorized source. 14. The fact that the vehicle was abandoned by the complainant in the workshop of O.Ps. 1 & 2 within a span of 8 months of its purchase speaks volumes to corroborate the version of the complainant that there was some patent manufacturing defect therein. Otherwise, no prudent person will leave the vehicle in this manner which had been purchased by him at the high cost of over 12,00,000/- rupees. 13. Further, State Commission while dismissing the appeal in its impugned order observed; 8. It is admitted by the appellants in para 5 of the written statement that respondent no.1 had brought the vehicle to the premises of the appellants on 29.8.2006 for repairs. He neither instructed the appellants for effecting repairs in the vehicle nor he picked up his vehicle which was still lying in the premises of the appellants. Rather the appellants have also issued notice dated 15.1.2007 (Ex.C-7) to respondent no.1 that the vehicle was lying with them since 29.8.2006. He has not taken it back and garage charges @ Rs.200/- per day were payable by him with effect from 29.8.2006 till the date of actual lifting of the vehicle or till the issuance of necessary instructions for repair of the vehicle. 19. Taking of such contradictory stands by the appellants clearly reveals that they are not having fair dealing with their customers. It is, therefore, held that the pleas taken by the appellants in the written arguments are totally false and contradictory to their own pleadings which clearly proves the mala-fide intention of the appellants. 20. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants was that since respondent no.1 has failed to avail any free/paid service as per the terms and conditions of the warranty clause, therefore, he is excluded from availing the benefits flowing from the warranty clause. It was also pleaded that since he has got the vehicle repaired from unauthorized dealers, he is precluded to avail the warranty clause. 21. These submissions have been considered. 22. As has been discussed above, there is no evidence if respondent no.1 has got the car repaired from unauthorized dealer. If it had been so, the defects would have been pointed out by the appellants without loss of time after 29.8.2006. Since they have taken this plea after a long time in their letter dated 12.12.2006, it is nothing but a concocted story and an after-thought. 23. So far as availing of free service/paid service is concerned, it is nowhere mentioned in the warranty clause that non-availing of free service will debar the customer from availing the warranty clause. Therefore, the version of the appellants that respondent no.1 had debarred himself from availing the warranty clause has no legs to stand. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants has made reference to the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported as handeshwar Kumar versus Tata Engineering Loco Motive Co. Ltd. and Anr. I(2007) CPJ 2 (NC) in which it is stated that the manufacturing defects can be proved only by leading expert opinion. In the present case, the conduct of the appellants themselves points out that there was a manufacturing defect and there was deficiency in service rendered by the appellants. The appellants remained silent for more than three months after the vehicle was handed over to them on 29.8.2006 and in the letter dated 12.12.2006, they have pointed out that respondent no.1 has got replacement of certain parts from unauthorized persons. Even after the expiry of 8 months, it needed heavy repairs. This clearly shows that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 25. In view of discussion held above, we find no merit in both the appeals and the same are dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- each. 14. It is well settled that under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ct, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed; lso, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora. 16. As per averments made in the complaint, the manufacturing date of the vehicle is mentioned as July, 2005, whereas the vehicle was sold and delivered to the complainant on 2.1.2006, meaning thereby that the old as well as used vehicle and also the category of the test drive vehicle was sold to the complainant. 17. Admittedly, there is no specific denial on behalf of Hind Motors as well as Tata Motors that the manufacturing date of the vehicle is mentioned as July, 2005. Further, there is no specific denial to this averment of the complainant also that the vehicle was sold and delivered to the complainant in the year 2006. 18. Thus, this act of the petitioners in selling the vehicle which was manufactured in the year 2005, in the year 2006 without disclosing the date of manufacture to the complainant certainly amounts to an unfair trade practice. 19. Furthermore, within eight months of selling of the vehicle, as per petitionersown case, it required substantial repairs worth Rs.2.25 lakh. This itself goes on to show that there were inherent defects in the vehicle, that is, why it required substantial repairs. Under such circumstances, no expert opinion is required as the facts of the case itself speaks that major repairs were required just after short span of eight months from the date of the sale of the vehicle. 20. Finding recorded by the fora below that the petitioners were deficient in rendering service is finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Under Section 21 of the Act, the National Commission, in revision, can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 21. We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order. Accordingly, both the revision petitions stand dismissed. 22. No order as to costs.