Hon’ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member 1. We heard the learned Counsel for Force Motors Limited (the Petitioner in R.P No. 1397 of 2016), the learned Counsel for M/s Shukla Automobiles (the Petitioner in R.P. No. 3315 of 2016) and the Complainant in person (the Respondent No. 1 in both the Revision Petitions). 2. The R.P. No. 1397 of 2016, filed by Force Motors Limited, is within limitation. Considering that the R.P. No. 3315 of 2016, filed by M/s Shukla Automobiles, is connected and concerned with the R.P. No. 1397 of 2016 filed by Force Motors Limited, and to decide the matter as a whole on merit, the self-admitted delay of 140 days in filing the R.P. No. 3315 of 2016 by M/s Shukla Automobiles is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case have been succinctly articulated by the State Commission in para 2 of its impugned Order: “[2] Brief facts are that the complainant, Mr. Mahendra Bhanudas Dhurgude had bought Force One (6 + D) motor vehicle bearing registration no. MH-25-R-4080 on 24/04/2012 from M/s Shukla Automobiles. Within a few days of purchase, the complainant found defects in the vehicle which were sought to rectified, but no repairs would be carried out. Hence, the complainant had prayed for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price for the vehicle. The complainant also prayed for damages in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-.” 4. The District Forum afforded opportunity to all the parties, heard the matter in the presence of the parties / counsel present, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 30.1.2014, allowed the Complaint: “Reasoning” “5. Issue no. 1 & 2: There is no dispute between the parties that, on 24.4.2012, the Complainant has purchased Force One (6 + D) vehicle bearing no. MH-25/ R 4080 manufactured by Opponent no. 1 from the Opponent no.2. After purchase of vehicle within few days, defects were found in the vehicle and continue to exist, therefore, those are manufacturing defects is the statement of the Complainant. On the contrary, the statement of the Opponent is that, there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and no defects are clearly mentioned in the complaint. “6. Though there is a mention of defects in the vehicle in the complaint, there is no mention of specific defects. However, in the application for appointment of the expert, they have mentioned low mileage, ineffective A/C, defective hand brake setting, improper 1st & 2nd gear shifting, inferior cushion, loose footstep button, defective head light focus, defective bonnet setting, defective steering bush, defects in engine, etc. as defects . As the Complainant has submitted separate application for appointment of the expert for inspection of defects in vehicle, therefore, it does not affect the complaint, though the defects are not mentioned in the complaint. “7. In the present complaint, Mr. D.S. Hiraskar, Surveyor and Loss Accessor had been appointed for submitting inspection report. He has submitted inspection report on 17.4.2013. His observations about the vehicle are as under. At the time of road test drive with Force Motors representative along with Mr. Mahendra B. Dhurgude and me, it was found that there is a whistling sound from Turbo Charger which affected the average and engine performance. Low cooling effect from A. C. When changing gears, gear shifter rod lock/ did not move correct at it position. After orally discussing above matter with Force Motors representative, in the presence of Mr. M.B. Dhurgude, it was suggested to replace A/C assy., Turbo Charger (New Modified/ Improved by Force Motors) and check gear box for solving above problem. Scrutinized job card and problem time to time repaired at the time of services but do not work properly. As per our best knowledge and experience above parts such as A/C assy., Turbo Charger not working properly due to get poor average, low cooling effect and replaced / repairing gearbox for smooth working. “8. Though the Opponent no. 1 & 2 have denied that, there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it cannot be denied that the alleged defects continuously exist. The opponents have not led any evidence to prove what has been done by them to rectify the alleged defects after filing of the complaint. There is only a statement made by them that, there is no defect in the vehicle other than that, there is no requisite evidence on record. When after repairing for several times, defects are not rectified permanently, defects are manufacturing defects. “9. The decision of the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in the matter of Tata Motors Ltd., V/s Manoj Gadi 7 Others 2009 CTJ 180 (CP) (SCDRC) is as under. Para. 7: In our view, onus shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the vehicle did not suffer from any defect including the manufacturing defect one the consumer proves from job cards that the vehicle was taken on large number of occasion for removing one defect or the other. 8. Every good or vehicle has to pass the test of its quality and standard on the touchstone or definition of word ‘defect’ which in terms of Section 2(1) (f) means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, empress or implied or as is claimed by any goods. In such an eventuality there are four options open to the Consumer Forum. First to direct the trader to remove defect, second is to replace the goods with new good with same standard and specification free from defect, third is to refund the price to the consumer charged by the trader, and fourth is to pay an amount as compensation for any loss, injury suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the opposite Party. 9. It is too much to expect from the consumer to get the services of any expert to prove the manufacturing defect as he has already suffered due to sale of defective vehicle and to ask him to pay further for engaging the services of the expert is too much to ask. Thus onus is heavily up the manufacturer to prove that vehicle do not suffer from any manufacturing defect. In this matter the Complainant has submitted citation of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CN. Anatharam V/s M/s FIAT India Ltd., 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 51. The principle in this citation is applicable to this complaint. “10. From the facts of the complaint, report of expert and above mentioned principles in the citations, it is clear that, the Complainant has succeeded in proving that, the vehicle has defects and those defects are not permanently resolved. On the contrary, the Opponents have not submitted any documents to prove that there is no manufacturing defects or the defects are totally rectified. Therefore, we arrive at a conclusion that, there are manufacturing defects in the said vehicle which cannot be repaired hence, the Complainant is entitled to receive replacement of vehicle or consequently refund of entire purchase price of the vehicle. From this it is clear that, the Opponent has sold defective vehicle and also deficient in providing services thereafter. “11. The complainant has purchased new vehicle by taking Financial aid from the Opponent no. 3. Instead of getting happiness, & satisfaction from the purchase of new vehicle, the complainant was required to face mental and physical trouble. Therefore, we think that, the Complainant is entitled to receive compensation. “12. In the circumstances, we pass the following orders. “Order” “1. The complaint of the Complainant is allowed. “2. The Opponent no. 1 &2 are directed to take back Force One (6 + D) vehicle bearing registration no. MH- 25/ R 4080 in replacement to give new vehicle of the same type. “OR” “The Opponent no. 1 & 2 are directed to refund to the Complainant price of Rs. 11,22,514/- received for Force One (6+ D) vehicle bearing registration no. MH-25/R 4080. “1. The Opponent no. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant towards mental & physical trouble. “2. The Opponent no. 1 & 2 are directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the receipt of this order.” (paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the District Forum’s Order) (as per the translated copy furnished by the Petitioners in both the R.P.s) 5. In separate Appeals, being F.A. No. 125 of 2014 and F.A. No. 519 of 2014, filed by Force Motors Limited and M/s Shukla Automobiles, the State Commission heard all parties / counsel, appraised the evidence, and, through a common Order dated 30.03.2016, dismissed both Appeals: “[4] The points for determination which arose for our consideration are as to:- i. Whether defective motor vehicle was sold by the opponent no. 1 and 2? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of the motor vehicle or refund of the price thereof? “[5] After giving opportunities to the parties to file their versions, affidavits, learned District forum found that the motor vehicle Force One (6 + D) bearing registration no. MH- 25- R-4080 was sold on 24/04/2012 from opponent no. 2- M/s. Shukla Automobiles to the complainant. When defects in the vehicle were found by the complainant such as less mileage, defect in Air Conditioner, defective hand brake setting, first and second gear in disorder, inferior quality of cushion, loose foot step button, defective head lamp focus, defect in bonnet setting, defect in steering bush, defects in engine etc. Expert opinion was sought from the technical surveyor and loss assessor, Mr. D.S. Hiraskar who inspected the motor vehicle on 17/04/2013 and found that the vehicle was defective and observed that “Low cooling effect from A/C. When changing gears, gear shifter rod lock/ not move correct at it position.” Thus, expert had advised replacement of AC Assy., Turbo Charger and solution to the gear box problem. As AC turbo charger was not functioning properly, there was low cooling effect and replaced/ repairing gearbox for smooth working. Turbo charger was also not properly working. “[6]. In the Forum below, no attempt was made on behalf of the opponent no.1 and 2 as to which steps were taken to rectify the defects. No such evidence was led about remedial steps. Burden of proof was upon the opponent no. 1 and 2 to establish that the motor vehicle did not suffer from defects as alleged or that vehicle was in roadworthy condition with no defects as alleged. However, the opponents failed to lead evidence as to rectifications of the defects nor replaced the vehicle by another vehicle. Under the circumstances, learned District Forum was justified to conclude that either vehicle ought to be replaced or price must be refunded. The judgement and award by the District Forum is based upon the reported ruling in the matter of – Tata Motors vs. Manoj Gadi & Ors., reported in 2009 CTJ 180 (CP) (NCDRC) and ruling in the matter of - C.N.Ananthram vs. Fiat India Ltd., reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 51. Based upon these reported rulings and the facts examined in the case in the light of affidavits on record, learned District Forum arrived at reasonable and logical conclusion. Particularly considering the fact, the complainant had got the vehicle examined by the expert and technical expert opinion consequent to inspection of vehicle in question was in favour of replacement of the vehicle or favouring relief as to refund of price as claimed by the complainant. That being so, ruling in the matter of – R.C. Grover vs. Tata Motors, reported in 2015 (III) CPR 420 (NC) cannot come to the rescue of the dealer, M/s. Shukla Automobiles as the ruling is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the presence case because in R.C. Grover’s case, there was no proof of manufacturing defects and there was no expert opinion. In the present case, technical expert opinion is in favour of the complainant. We feel that it is the duty of the manufacturer as well as dealer pursuant to the sale of the valuable motor vehicle to offer repairs or removal of defects of the vehicle to satisfy the consumer about road worthiness and defectless vehicle. Reference is also made by the learned advocate for M/s. Shukla Automobiles to the ruling in the matter of – Tata Motors vs. Sandeep Kumar, First Appeal No. A – 2007/ 530 in which in para 7, learned State Commission, Delhi observed that “whenever a consumer purchases a brand new vehicle the minimum expectation is that he would not have any inconvenience and would not have to go to the garage off and on for removing one defect or the other at the cost of expenses, time and physical discomfort and if the consumer takes the vehicle on several occasions and the defect is of such nature which is irreversible and cannot be rectified then the mental agony, emotional sufferings, physical discomfort he suffers is unimaginable. Thus, dispute between the parties should be settled once for all and therefore refund of the cost is the only feasible solution and not replacement of defective vehicle.” That being so, since the learned District Forum while concluding judgement gave option to the opponent no. 1 and 2 either to replace the motor vehicle or refund the price, we do not find any reason to warrant interference in the impugned judgement and award. Hence, we pass the following order. “ORDER” “1. Both the appeals bearing no. A/14/125 and A/14/519 stand dismissed. “2. No order as to costs.” (paras 4, 5 and 6 of the State Commission’s Order) 6. Force Motors Limited and M/s Shukla Automobiles have filed the instant two Revision Petitions under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 30.03.2016 of the State Commission. 7. We note in particular the extracts of the respective appraisal made by the two fora, quoted, verbatim, in paras 4 and 5 above. 8. We find the impugned Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. 9. The State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Forum. 10. Within the ambit and scope of section 21(b), we find no crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. 11. We may however add that defects in the vehicle were determined after referring the vehicle to an impartial expert. The expert was appointed by the District Forum at its considered wisdom. Representative of Force Motors Limited, representative of M/s Shukla Automobiles and the Complainant in person were present when the expert made his technical test. The District Forum afforded opportunity of being heard to Force Motors Limited and M/s Shukla Automobiles on the correctness or otherwise of the report made by the technical expert. The State Commission, in para 6 of its Order, has also inter alia observed that “ - - - Particularly considering the fact, the complainant had got the vehicle examined by the expert and technical expert opinion consequent to inspection of vehicle in question was in favour of replacement of the vehicle or favouring relief as to refund of price as claimed by the complainant.- - -”. The [a] expertise of the technical expert, the [b] method of test and the [c] report made by him, were accepted by the District Forum, and have passed credence in scrutiny by the State Commission. We perceive no substantive or material omission on the part of the fora below in meeting the ingredients contained in Section 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act 1986, as may cause to vitiate their findings. 12. We also find the Award made by the District Forum (quoted in para 4 above), and as affirmed by the State Commission, to be just and equitable. 13. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may require interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b). 14. The Revision Petitions, being bereft of merit, are dismissed. 15. Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution of its Order as per the law. 16. A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the Complainant / Respondent No. 1 (in both R.P.s) by the Registry within ten days of its pronouncement. | 
