Delay of 6 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Petitioner purchased a bus in the year 1997. He took the bus for repairs to the respondent a number of times. No manufacturing defect was pointed out. Engine of the bus was seized on 24.02.1999. -2- Petitioner raised a dispute saying that there was a manufacturing defect in the bus. The complaint was filed before the District Forum in the year 1999. Respondent entered appearance and took the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the complaint. On merits, the stand taken by the respondent was that there was no manufacturing defect and that the petitioner had got the vehicle repaired several times from outside. Onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect is on the petitioner. Petitioner did not produce any expert evidence. In order to get an expert opinion, the District Forum directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,000/- as expenses of the expert. Petitioner refused to pay the expenses and challenged the order passed by the District Forum and ultimately, brought this dispute up to this Commission. This Commission rejected the contention of the petitioner that it was not liable to pay the expenses. Petitioner was directed to pay the expenses and the case was remitted back to the District Forum. -3- According to the counsel for the petitioner, the case was decided by this Commission on 10.07.2007. According to him, petitioner had deposited the expenses on 30.03.2007. The District Forum on receipt of the order of this Commission appointed the expert but he conveyed his inability to examine the vehicle in question vide his letter dated 08.09.2007 on the ground of inordinate delay. The District Forum taking all the facts into consideration came to the conclusion that since the District Forum had to decide the case in a summary manner, it was not possible to decide the present complaint as it involved disputed questions of facts, which required taking of extensive evidence. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by a detailed order. We agree with the view taken by the fora below. The bus was purchased in the year 1997. The petitioner filed the complaint in the year 1999 alleging manufacturing defect. Petitioner did not lead the expert evidence. The District Forum in order to elicit the expert -4- opinion appointed an expert and directed the petitioner to pay the expenses which was contested by the petitioner up to this Commission. Ultimately in the year 2007 the expert declined to give the expert opinion on the ground of inordinate delay. Apart from the expert in question many other experts were also approached and each expert declined to inspect the vehicle because of the delay. The fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are required to decide the case in a summary manner. The facts of the case over the years have become too complicated and it is not possible for the consumer fora to decide it in a summary manner by taking evidence by way of affidavit. The fora below have rightly directed the petitioner to approach the civil court for relief. Dismissed. | 
