The complainant No.1/appellant No.1,  which is a private company, purchased a car manufactured by respondents Nissan Motor Company from its distributors/authorised agents, on 20.04.2008 for a sale consideration of Rs.19,90,000/-. The case of the complainants/appellants is that within a month of its purchase the vehicle started giving trouble and required rectifications.  This is also their case that the vehicle has serious manufacturing defects.  The

-2-

complainants therefore approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking compensation etc.

(2)     The complaint was resisted by the respondents who took a preliminary objection that it was barred by limitation the vehicle having been purchased on 20.04.2008 and the complaint being filed on 20.07.2012.  It was also stated in the written version filed by the respondent that the warranty period of the vehicle had expired on 19.04.2010.

(3)     The State Commission vide order dated 22.4.2019 dismissed the consumer complaint.  It was noticed by the State Commission while dismissing the complaint, that the bill dated 19.11.2008 was for replacement of filter assembly oil, bill dated 28.03.2009 was also for replacing filter assembly oil, bill dated 07.10.2019 was for replacement of belt compressor, bill dated 17.11.2019 was for replacement of disk assembly clutch, bill dated 31.01.2011 was blank having no details of the work whereas the bills dated 19.04.2011 and 30.08.2011 were for replacement of coolant.

(4)     It is an admitted position that the vehicle had run for as much as 80,000k.m. by the time the consumer complaint was instituted.  It is

-3-

difficult to accept that a vehicle suffering from manufacturing defect would be able to run as much as 80,000k.m.  over a period of almost four years.  None of the job cards opened at the time the vehicle was taken to the workshop, referred to any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  So long as the vehicle was in warranty period, the complaints were duly attended and the deficiencies pointed out by the consumer were duly removed.

(5)     It is also an admitted position that no expert was examined by the complainants/appellants to prove the alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle.  In the absence of an expert evidence, it would be difficult to accept that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect.  The failure to produce the evidence is coupled with the fact that the vehicle has run for 80,000km over four years and, the job cards do not reflect any manufacturing defect.  The State Commission, in my opinion, was justified in dismissing the appeal.  The impugned order does not call for any interference by this Commission, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.  The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost.