1.      This revision petition under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 28.02.2017 in Consumer Complaint No. 429 of 2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) arising out of order dated 06.10.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 436 of 2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (in short, the ‘District Forum’).

2.      The facts, in brief, according to the revision petitioner, are that the petitioner purchased a Honda City ZX car (registration no. CH 03 W 3247) on 29.04.2006 manufactured by respondent no. 1 from respondent no. 2 for a consideration of Rs.5,91,000/-. On 30.08.2006 the petitioner reported several defects which were stated to be inherent/manufacturing defects including (i) excessive noise inside the car while driving with all windows closed as well as tyre noise; (ii) poor pick-up in hilly roads as well as failure to climb hill roads; (iii) left hand side front seat garnish adjustment entangles with trousers and sarees as well as bumpy ride. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent admitted the above defects vide letter dated 05.09.2006 but despite efforts, the complaint regarding failure of the car to climb hilly roads could not be rectified. On 16.06.2007 respondent no. 2 deputed his mechanic to test drive the car and the car failed to negotiate the hill climb to Barog. Letter dated 14.04.2008 from petitioner to respondent also failed to elicit a reply.

3.      A consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum on 22.04.2008. Another test drive on 11.05.2008 by the head mechanic of respondent no. 2 failed. The District Forum vide order dated 06.10.2010 disallowed the complaint of manufacturing defect since on the basis of the job cards brought on record it was not proved that there was an inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle which had already covered a distance of 40,000 kms and was in regular use by the petitioner and the absence of any qualification of the mechanic being mentioned in the affidavit. The petitioner’s appeal before the State Commission was decided on 28.02.2017 based upon an Expert Opinion obtained by the State Commission from the Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh (also named as PEC University of Technology) which held that the vehicle had successfully climbed the incline to Barog during test drive with 5 passengers and two bags of cement weighing 50 kgs each. The appeal was therefore dismissed, over-ruling the objection of the petitioner regarding the competence of the test team members. The instant revision petition impugns this order.

4.      It is the petitioner’s case that the vehicle was not tested properly for grade ability provided by the manufacturer as per procedures laid down in IS:13988 and the vehicle was not tested at an equivalent slope which it failed to climb but was tested at a lower slope where incline was less. It is also stated that the test report is incorrect, wrong and devoid of any technical data as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. in CA No. 5991 of 2002 dated 11.09.2009, (2009) 9 SCC 709 which held that mere assertion without mentioning the data or basis is not evidence even if given by an expert.

5.      I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no.1 and have carefully perused the documents on record. Since none appeared on behalf of respondent no.2, he was proceeded ex parte.

6.      The petitioner argued as per his petition that the State Commission’s order was flawed in that it relied upon the expert opinion of the Punjab Engineering College which was not based upon any data as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal (supra). It was also argued that the test was not as per specifications of the manufacturer that the vehicle would negotiate a 16 degree incline. Per contra, the respondent argued that the vehicle was purchased in April 2006 and had already run over 40,000 kms at the time of filing of the complaint before the District Forum. The warranty of the vehicle had also long expired. The State Commission’s finding is stated to be in order by the respondent since it is based on an Expert Opinion from a credible technical institution and the vehicle was tested with a full complement of passengers and goods weighing 100 kgs. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhubneshwar Development Authority Vs. Susanta Kumar Mishra, (2009) 4 SCC 684 which held that:

Any Fora under the 1986 Act before granting any relief to a complainant, should be satisfied that the complaint relates to any of the matters specified in S.2(1)(c) and that the complainant has alleged and made out either unfair or restrictive trade practice by a trader, or defects in the goods sold, or any deficiency in a service rendered, or charging of excessive price for the goods sold, or offering of any goods hazardous to life and safety without displaying information regarding contents, etc. If none of these is alleged and made out, the complaint must be rejected.

None of these is stated to have been proved and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7.      Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased on 29.04.2006 and has covered 1,07,000 kms. The vehicle has not had, as per job cards brought on record, any mechanical or other defect relating to transmission during this period other than complaints of a very routine nature. As per the petitioner’s own case, the first occasion on which he brought certain defects to the knowledge of the opposite party no. 2, was on 30.08.2006 when, inter alia, the issue of the vehicle’s inability to negotiate the hill road to Barog was highlighted. Even before the District Forum filed in 2008 during pendency of complaint no. 436 of 2008 the defect highlighted was of the vehicle’s inability to climb the Barog slope and was test driven on this stretch and found to be defect free.  The State Commission, therefore, directed obtaining of an expert opinion from Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh (PEC University of Technology) which concluded that the vehicle had no manufacturing defect since it was successful in climbing the inclined road. This report dated 13.02.2017 was as under:

The vehicle having registration number CH03 W 3247, engine number L15A30080847, chassis number MAKGD851D6N330 802 was presented for inspection and test drive. The vehicle in question was inspected and test driven for about 126 kms.

The vehicle in question was test driven up to Hotel “Barog Heights” in Barog owned by Himachal Tourism with full seating capacity (five persons). During test drive it has been observed that the vehicle does not have any problem in going uphill or on hilly roads. On the instance of Sh. Ravinder Singh Sohal the vehicle was brought back half a kilometre from the hotel on the slope and again put on test drive from standstill position. Again the vehicle went up to the hotel smoothly. Overall, the driving of the vehicle was smooth and comfortable. It is pertinent to mention that two bags of cement weighing 50 kgs each were already there in the boot space of the car while going uphill besides vehicle’s weight approximately 465 kgs of weight were put while going uphill that includes five persons and two bags of cement.

The committee is of the opinion that during test drive, the vehicle in question does not have any problem while going on hilly roads up to the hotel and coming down from hill. The vehicle went up to the hotel very smoothly like a normal vehicle.

7.      From the foregoing it is evident that the vehicle which was over 10 years old and had covered over 1,07,000 kms was proceeded to be examined as per the directions of the State Commission according to the procedure laid down under section 13 of the Act which requires the defective good to be tested at an authorized laboratory. The terms of reference of the test were clearly based on the complaint of the petitioner that the vehicle failed to negotiate steep inclines to Barog. The vehicle was tested with a full vehicle load of passengers and 100 kgs of goods twice by technical experts from an engineering college appointed as an expert by the State Commission. There is no infirmity in the order of the State Commission accepting the report of the expert and concluding that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in view of the negotiating the incline suggested by the petitioner himself. The contention of the petitioner, based upon Ramesh Chandra Agrawal (supra) that “mere assertion without mentioning the data or basis is not evidence even if given by an expert” is not of help to him as the report in the instant case is not without basis since the complaint had categorically mentioned the inclined road to Barog and the test drive covered this stretch. It is relevant to note that the vehicle had been tested with a full load through two runs.

8.      The revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21 of the Act is limited. Both the lower fora have returned concurrent findings on facts that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. The State Commission has also relied upon an experts’ report from the appropriate laboratory. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 dated 18.03.20211 which was reiterated in T Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) through LRs and Ors. vs N Madhava Rao and Ors., Civil Appeal no.3408 of 2019 dated 05.04.2019, this Commission can interfere with an order of the lower fora exercising its revisional jurisdiction if there is either a jurisdictional error or material irregularities in the order impugned. In the instant case, there is no such infirmity that warrants interference. The impugned order is therefore, not found to be liable for review. 

9.      In view of the foregoing, the petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.