Petitioner herein, Telco, presently Tata Motors which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition assailing the Judgement and Order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission), Punjab  in Appeal No. 74/2002 whereby State Commission, has upheld the Order of the District Forum, directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.61,691  within one month failing which to pay interest @ 12% till the date of payment.

          Briefly stated the facts are: Complainant-Respondent   purchased a truck bearing Chasis No.373011 FOQ 711398, Engine No.697 D 22-FQQ 743452 on 30.6.1999 from Indra Auto Sales Ltd., authorized dealer of the Petitioner.  Dealer has not been made a party-respondent.   On 3^rd May,  2000 when the driver employed by the Respondent was carrying  bags of malt from Mallout to Kathmandu the rear axle of the truck broke down  from both sides  at Gopal Ganj, Bihar.   According to the Petitioner, though the cause of breakdown of the   axle  was due to overloading of the truck and also due to tampering with the vehicle to increase the load carrying capacity, Petitioner replaced the axle free of cost.  Not satisfied with the replacement of the axle, Respondent filed  the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes  Redressal Forum, Patiala (for short, the District Forum) claiming an amount of Rs.1,85,191/- on account of damage of the truck, replacement of the parts, repairs etc and also due to the halting of the truck in working along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of occurrence till the date of  final payment along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment.

          Petitioner, on being served,  put in appearance and filed its written statement, inter alia, contending  that the  Respondent herein was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,  as he was    a professional transporter through Truck Union Patiala.  It was also contended   that after having signed the satisfaction note dated 2.7.99, Respondent was estopped under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act from raising any claim against Petitioner.   It was also contended that in view of clause 5 and 6 of the warranty terms and conditions the complaint was not maintainable.    Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits.  District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.69, 690/- by way of compensation break up of which is - Rs.12600/- spent on repair of the truck at Gopal Ganj  so as to bring it to Patiala, Rs.18,500 for engaging  another vehicle from Patiala to Kathmandu on account of breaking down of the truck of the complainant, Rs.591/- spent on FAX and telephone expenses, Rs.20,000/- on account of non-use of vehicle from 19.5.2000 to 10.7.2000 and delay in the repair of the vehicle, Rs.10,000/- on account of inconvenience, mental torture, agony and harassment.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved of the Order of the District Forum  filed appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned Order.       

 Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission,   this Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.  Counsel for the Petitioner contends that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that  in any case, Respondent  had  failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the truck. That though the axle of the truck broke down due to the  overloading of the truck and tampering with the vehicle to increase the load carrying  capacity, Petitioner had  replaced the axle free of cost.  That since the broken part i.e. axle  had already been replaced by the Petitioner free of cost and   Respondent  had signed the satisfaction note  2^nd July, 1999, the complaint filed by the Respondent  was not maintainable.   As against this,  counsel for the Respondent reiterated  the findings recorded by the Fora below  for the reasons stated in the Orders passed.

Counsel for the parties had been heard at length.

Under the Consumer Protection Act compensation or damages can be awarded, only if Complainant has suffered loss or damages due to negligence of the manufacturer or service provider.    There is no findings recorded in the orders passed by the Fora below that the break down of the rear axle  was on account of manufacturing defect.  Onus to prove  that  there was any manufacturing defect was on the Respondent which he failed to discharge by leading any evidence.  Respondent failed to show that the problem in the vehicle was inherent in nature because of which vehicle could not run.  The vehicle was running satisfactorily from the date of purchase i.e.  30^th June, 1999 to 3^rd of May, 2000 when the rear axle  broke down from both sides.  Merely breaking of the axle does not  prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The dealer/manufacturer is  liable to replace any defective parts of the vehicle within the warranty period.  According to the Petitioner axle broke down due to overloading and tampering with the vehicle to increase load carrying capacity,  Petitioner replaced the axle free of costs.  Even if the axle was defective, the same was replaced by the Petitioner free of cost.    Petitioner could not be asked to reimburse   Rs.18,500/- for engaging  another vehicle from Patiala to Kathmandu on account of breaking down of the truck of the complainant, Rs.591/- spent on FAX and telephone expenses, Rs.20,000/- on account of non-use of vehicle from 19.5.2000 to 10.7.2000.  Respondent was not entitled to recover the sum of Rs.12,600/-  on account of repair of the truck as well.  Under the warranty the Respondent-Petitioner was liable to replace the defective parts, if any, and not for payment of any other loss, which may have  occurred to the Complainant.

In our  opinion,  the Fora below have completely erred in awarding  compensation  of Rs.61,691/- to the  Complainant under different heads enumerated in the forgoing paragraphs.  Apart from this,   after replacement of the axle, Respondent had signed  satisfaction note  dated 2.7.99.     Having signed the satisfaction note, the complaint filed by the Respondent claiming compensation was not maintainable.

For the reasons stated above, Revision Petition is allowed and the Orders passed by the Fora below  are set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no  order as to costs.

Amount deposited, if any, by the Petitioner be refunded along with accrued interest there on, if any.