This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) assails the order in appeal no. 1831 of 2012 dated 12.01.2014 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) (incorrectly mentioned as appeal no. 1701 of 2010 in the petition) arising out of order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Lakhimpur Kheri in CC no. 20 of 2011 dated 10.04.2011.

2.     The facts of this case being similar to RP No. 2107 of 2016, this order will also dispose of RP no. 2107 of 2016. The facts of the case are taken from RP no. 1234 of 2014.

3.     The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that in October 2010, the wife of the respondent/ complainant booked a Maruti EECO Car (Model 7 STR) with the petitioner/ opposite party no.1. The delivery was taken on 22.10.2010 by her husband (respondent no.1) and LPG Cylinder Kit was installed on 16.12.2010. The petitioner states that the respondent was paid Rs.38,000/- in cash on 26.10.2010 towards registration, insurance and installation of LPG Gas Kit. Registration was done on 14.10.2020 at the RTO Shahajahanpur, UP and LPG Gas Kit was installed on 16.12.2016. On 12.11.2010 a legal notice was sent by Mrs Meena Gupta to the petitioner/ opposite party no.1 (Sumitra Motors) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice seeking refund of Rs.1426/- and Rs.15,000/- for loss of business at Rs.1000/- per day since the vehicle had been purchased for commercial purpose and could not run for want of registration, insurance and Gas Kit. The first free service of the car was availed on 13.11.2010 when mileage recorded was 1120 km. The second free service was availed on 22.12.2010 with mileage recorded as 5200 km. On both the occasions no manufacturing defect was brought to the notice by the respondent. On 21.04.2011 the vehicle was taken for check-up camp to Concept Car Pvt., Ltd., Lucknow Road, Sitapur when it had covered 52,563 kms. No manufacturing defect was brought out during the check-up. On 05.08.2011 the tyres and tubes of the said vehicle were changed at Rajender Corporation at Lakhimpur Kheri. On 18.11.2011, the respondent/ complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle and filed a consumer complaint no.20 of 2011 on 12.12.2011 before the District Forum. It is contended that in this complaint a new prayer was inserted without notice to the petitioner/ opposite party and 30.01.2012 and the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioner.

4.     Vide order dated 10.04.2011 the District Forum on contest allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite party to deliver a defect free car along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Against this order, appeal no. 1831 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum on 17.01.2014.  Additional cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed as cost of the appeal on the ground that the vehicle was purchased by the respondent by obtaining a loan for the purpose of earning her livelihood by self-employment. The order also held that the Manager of Sumitra Motors and Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. had not filed any appeal seeking dispensation from the need for an expert’s report regarding manufacturing defect. This order has been impugned by way of the present revision petition.

5.     The Order of the District Forum, Lakhimpur Kheri, dated 10.04.2012 reads as under:

“The complaint of the complainant is admitted ex parte against opposite parties and opposite parties are directed to make available the new defect free car in place of the disputed car within one month from the date of the order and also pay Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and litigation cost within the same time limit to the complainant.

In case of being unable to provide the new defect free car the opposite parties are directed to pay the full price paid by the complainant along with the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of the payment”.

6.     The order of the State Commission dated 12.01.2014 reads as under:

“The judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 10.04.2012 is affirmed by dismissing the present appeal.

Appellant will pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant/ applicant as cost of this appeal.”

7.     The petitioner/ opposite party’s case is that the vehicle was intended to be used for commercial purpose and therefore the complainant was not a “consumer” under the ambit of Section 2 (d) (1) of the Act. This fact had not been appreciated by the lower fora, including the fact that the vehicle was being run for commercial purpose by engaging drivers. That the State Commission is stated to have erred in not appreciating that the complainant had not filed any evidence of an expert under section 13 (4) of the Act. It also stated that the complainant had no locus standi as the owner of the vehicle was Mrs Meena Gupta which fact was admitted in the legal notice dated 12.01.2010. It was also averred that the lower fora had not appreciated that the warranty for the vehicle had become void due to the installation of the LPG Kit in violation of the warranty policy. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 07.01.2014 in appeal no. 1831 of 2012 be set aside with costs.

8.     I have heard the learned counsels for Mr Rajiv Gupta and Maruti Suzuki. On 14.03.2023, none appeared on behalf of M/s Sumitra D S Motors despite being provided a final opportunity on 17.01.2023 and accordingly, they were proceeded ex parte and the case reserved for orders. Vide interim order dated 12.04.2023 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C ) no. 4527 of 2022 set aside the order dated 14.03.2023 and directed the NCDRC to hear the matter on 20^th April 2023 along with imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner to be paid to respondent no.1. Following compliance on 20.04.2023, the matter was heard on 25.04.2023 after notice to the parties. Counsel for opposite party no.2 adopted the arguments of the petitioner.

9.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted orally as per his written synopsis of arguments. His submissions in brief were that (a) the respondent/ complainant was not a ‘consumer’ under the ambit of section 2 (i) (d) of the Act as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose; (b) that the respondent had suppressed material facts before the lower fora; (c) the warranty of the vehicle had been rendered void in view of installation of the LPG Kit in the car; (d) no manufacturing defect was evident as the vehicle had run over 80,000 kms as per job cards when the vehicle was brought to workshop; (e) no expert opinion was available as required under the Act to establish a manufacturing defect; (f) there was no liability on petitioner/ opposite party no.1 being only a dealer and not a manufacturer of the vehicle in question; (g) no evidence was filed by the respondent in support of his case; (h) as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neena Aneja and Anr. vs Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., in Civil Appeal no. 3766-3767 of 2020 dated 16.03.2021 all cases should be heard before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986; (i) the amendment to the complaint before the District Forum in CC no. 20 of 2011 was done without notice to him and without mandatory affidavit and (j) he was proceeded against ex parte without service of notice to him.  From the written synopsis of arguments dated 14.06.2021 filed by the petitioner, it is evident that all these issues have been raised by him therein.

10.   The petitioner argued at length that the respondent was not a ‘consumer’ under the ambit of Section 2 (i) (d) of the Act, since the dominant purpose of his purchase of the vehicle was to use it for commercial purpose as a taxi, for which he had hired multiple drivers and was not for the purposes of earning his livelihood through employment. Respondent no.1 was alleged to have suppressed material facts as has stated that vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and the impugned order of the State Commission dated 12.01.2014 which also records the same. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Harsolia Motors and Others Civil Appeal nos. 5354 of 2007, 28221 of 2012, 3350 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Civil) nos. 1039 of 2020 dated 13.04.2023 which, held that:

“what is finally culled out is that each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances and what is to be examined is whether any activity or transaction is for commercial purpose to generate profits and there cannot be a straight-jacket formula which can be adopted and every case has to be examined on the broad principles which have been laid down by this Court, of which detailed discussion has been made”.

It is contended that as per loan documents of the respondent filed vide IA No. 3637 of 2014 from which it is evident that the respondent is a proprietor of Shivam Electronic and that he has other commercial activities.  

11.   Therefore, it was argued that the complaint and appeal before the lower fora were not maintainable and the District Forum and the State Commission acted in jurisdictional error. He has also relied upon the order of this Commission in Kumari Namrata Singh vs Indus – A Division of Electrotherm and Anr., in RP No. 2670 of 2019 dated 06.08.2012, which held that for proving the fact of a manufacturing defect, expert opinion is necessary and that merely on the basis of the repair of the vehicle on a few occasions it cannot be said that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect. According to the petitioner no manufacturing defect was evident from the various job cards pertaining to the vehicle in question on the dates that it was sent to the work-shop of the petitioner. The petitioner has also argued that the amendment application was allowed by the District Forum to include a claim for manufacturing defect as an afterthought without the necessary affidavit or notice to the petitioner. The affidavit filed along with the amendment application according to him was only a supporting affidavit and not for a manufacturing defect.

12.   Per contra the respondent has contested the arguments of the petitioner and stated that this Commission has limited jurisdiction as per section 21 (b) of the Act in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the lower fora unless some jurisdictional error or material irregularity was proven. He has argued that the revision petition was not maintainable in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SC 269 dated 18.03.2011.

13.   He also argued that both the lower fora have categorically recorded that the petitioner herein had been served notice and that there were no reasons to conclude that petitioner had been proceeded against them without any opportunity of presenting his case. The District Forum had noted that:

“notice in the complaint was sent to the opposite parties on 27.01.2011 but despite of proper service, the objection letter is not presented from their side.

 14.  The State Commission’s order at page 37 para 2 has also stated that notice was issued to the opposite parties. It is submitted that notice was issued for the amendment application also and therefore, the petitioner’s arguments of not being noticed is incorrect. He has also argued that the respondent was a ‘consumer’ under the purview of section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, 1986 and that the vehicle was registered in his name. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to state that the vehicle was registered as a taxi or produced any evidence to indicate that the vehicle was being operated as a taxi by the respondent or that multiple drivers were engaged. Therefore, the contention that the dominant purpose for the purchase of the vehicle was ‘commercial’ is not established.

15.   As regards non-production of any expert opinion, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that as per the order of the District Forum and the State Commission, there was admission by the petitioner/ opposite party of a mechanical defect in the vehicle which had been recorded on the writing pad of M/s Sumitra Motors by its own mechanic and therefore, the District Forum had also recorded that:

“The complainant submitted the written arguments and list of paper no. 18/1 to 18/2 and a report on the pad of Sumit Motors which was issued by Sumit Motors to the complainant. After the perusal of this paper no. 18/2 dated 21.03.2012 it is clear that it is mentioned in this that ‘the car was sent to us’. Our mechanic told after checking that the engine was damaged due to heating…………..

There was defect in the car’s engine and the record regarding the defect given by the complainant to the opposite party which on the pad of Sumit Motors is available on record which makes it clear that according to the mechanic of the opposite party the engine of the car got damaged due to heating in spite of this the opposite party neither got the defect repaired nor provided the facilities to the complainant which he was entitled for as consumer.

In this way the facts stated in the complaint are completely established on the basis of above said analysis and the one sided evidence available on record and the complaint is liable to admitted. The complainant is liable to get a new defect free car in place of the disputed car and with the registration certificate and insurance certificate”.

[ Emphasis added ]

16.   Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that he adopts the argument of the revision petitioner. In addition, he has also relied upon the job cards which were filed to argue (a) that there was no manufacturing defect noted in the vehicle; and (b) that it was evident that the vehicle had been used for commercial purpose since it had run over nearly 80,000 kms in 15 months.

17.   On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and whether the respondent/ complainant was a ‘consumer’ under the purview of the Act is concerned, the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent/ complainant is not a consumer under the Act. However, the registration of the vehicle with the concerned Transport Authority stands in the name of the respondent/ complainant in his personal capacity. No evidence has been produced by the petitioner to the contrary to indicate that the vehicle is registered as a commercial vehicle/ taxi. According to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a motor cab means:

“25.   any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward”.

35.     “Public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage”.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated in his written synopsis that respondent no.1 is not a ‘consumer’ under section 2 (1) ( d) of the Act, as he filed a business loan application with IA no.3637 of 2014 showing therein his various businesses including one in the name of ‘Shivam Electronics’. It is also stated that Rajiv Kumar Gupta has a CC loan account (No. CC 218) with Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri, UP. He submits that respondent no.1 has not disclosed that he was a businessman and was running another business. He further submits that the complainant obtained the registration from the Road Tax Office for personal use of the vehicle whereas it was being used a taxi which was a commercial purpose. In the absence of any evidence on affidavit by the petitioner that the vehicle was either registered as a taxi, or was being driven by drivers engaged for the purpose of profit and not earning livelihood, except to rely on documents filed by the respondent himself to indicate loan in the name of Shivam Electronics, this averment is not categorically proved.

18.   It is stated by the petitioner that there was no manufacturing defect in the said car, as the complainant had driven the car for 90,371 km as on 30.07.2012. Complainant had also got an LPG Kit installed from an unauthorised person against the warranty conditions of the Maruti car on 19.03.2012 and there was no expert opinion produced before the District Forum showing any defect in the car. The petitioner contends that he is a dealer of M/s Maruti and as per settled law a dealer cannot be responsible for any manufacturing defects.

19.   Petitioner has also not been able to substantiate his averments that the vehicle was driven by multiple drivers, and was therefore, being commercially used on this account. His averment that the vehicle had covered over 80,000 kms in duration of 15 months and therefore, the vehicle was being utilised as a taxi can only be construed as a conjuncture and surmise. In the absence of being supported by cogent documentary evidence, the argument that because the vehicle was being driven by multiple drivers (which itself has not been substantiated by evidence), cannot be taken as evidence that the vehicle was not being utilised for his own livelihood. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Laxmi Engineering Works vs P S G Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 that the determination of ‘commercial use’ is to be determined based on the facts in each case. Therefore, commercial use of the car is not proven by petitioner.

20.    The respondent/ complainant’s case before the District Forum was for that the vehicle in question had an inherent manufacturing defect which rendered it defective and the prayer before the District Forum was therefore, for replacement of a new defect free car or refund the full purchase price of the car to be returned with 18% per annum. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for the protection of rights of consumers against, quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices and the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumes.

21.   In a matter wherein a manufacturing defect in a good is alleged, the Act provides for the following procedure to be followed as per Section 13 (i) as below:

 (c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory

(d) before any sample of the goods is referred to any appropriate laboratory under clause (c), the District Forum may require the complainant to deposit to the credit of the Forum such fees as may be specified, for payment to the appropriate laboratory for carrying out the necessary analysis or test in relation to the goods in question;

(e) the District Forum shall remit the amount deposited to its credit under clause (d) to the appropriate laboratory to enable it to carry out the analysis or test mentioned in clause (c) and on receipt of the report from the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum shall forward a copy of the report along with such remarks as the District Forum may feel appropriate to the opposite party;

(f) if any of the parties disputes the correctness of the findings of the appropriate laboratory, or disputes the correctness of the methods of analysis or test adopted by the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum shall require the opposite party or the complainant to submit in writing his objections in regard to the report made by the appropriate laboratory;

 (g) The District Forum shall thereafter give a reasonable opportunity to the complainant as well as the opposite party of being heard as to the correctness or otherwise of the report made by the appropriate laboratory and also as to the objection made in relation thereto under clause (f) and issue an appropriate order under section.

22.   In the instant case, the requirement of section 13 (c) of the Act have clearly not been met. No reference was made to an appropriate laboratory or authorised workshop to test the vehicle for the alleged defect. The lower fora have concluded that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle as the engine was over heating without any expert opinion as to the cause of the over-heating and whether the cause was entirely attributable to a manufacturing defect.

23.   The State Commission has relied upon a note on the writing pad of Sumitra Motors and the opinion of the mechanic. The job cards pertaining to the vehicle when it was brought to the workshop of the petitioner do not record any defect which is suggestive/ indicative of a manufacturing defect. It is also not disputed that the vehicle has run over 1,00,000 kms in over 15 months. While its tyres and tubes were changed on 21.09.2011 when it was taken to the car fair in Lakhimpur Kheri no evidence has been brought on record by the respondent regarding any mechanical or other engine/ transmission defect which warranted repeated repairs or replacement of key components. The vehicle has also been brought to the workshop on various occasions essentially for routine servicing and not for any major break down or repairs requiring extensive repairs involving spare parts.

24.   The Act specifically provides for the procedure to be followed in case the report of the appropriate laboratory concludes that a manufacturing defect is evident. As per section 13 (c ) C P Act, 1986 wherein it has stated as under:

Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the same so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, which ever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”.

25.   In the absence of the provisions of the Act not having been adopted or followed, the conclusion of the District Forum that the vehicle in question suffered from a manufacturing defect warranting its replacement cannot be sustained. The lower fora have manifestly erred in arriving at such a conclusion without the vehicle being examined by a qualified expert. It is also inescapable that the vehicle’s warranty had been rendered void with the installation of the LPG Gas Kit as per the terms and conditions of the warranty of the manufacturer.The conclusion that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect merely on the basis of a report of a mechanic when the vehicle had covered over 52,000 kms and was not covered under warranty due to installation of the LPG Kit, is, therefore, an erroneous conclusion that deserves to be set aside. The over-heating of an engine needed to be established through an expert’s opinion to determine whether it was due to operational or maintenance or manufacturing related causes. The finding of the lower fora based on an assessment by a mechanic in the face of previous records of servicing of the vehicle is manifestly perverse.

26.   It is also an admitted fact that the tyres and tubes of the car were replaced on 21.09.2011 on account of wear and tear due to the vehicle having covered over 80,000 kms over a period of 15 months. The vehicle  was also regularly serviced by respondent no.1 whose job cards did not indicate any instances of repairs or replacement of parts suggestive of any manufacturing defect in the mechanical running of the vehicle that may be suggestive of manufacturing defect. The vehicle had not been brought to the work-shop during this period for rectification of any major defect or the same defects occurring repeatedly indicating that the complaint had persisted over a period of time or which involved any major repair, over haul or replacement of parts as per the record. When the vehicle was not examined by an ‘appropriate laboratory’ or, in this case, a workshop, the establishment of a manufacturing defect, i.e., a defect which could not be repaired is untenable.  The only evidence being relied upon is an opinion of a mechanic regarding the heating of the engine. In the absence of any expert opinion under Section 13 being available, the basis for the conclusion of the District Forum that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect cannot be appreciated. This is a material irregularity on the part of the lower fora.

27.   Revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21 is limited, especially when there are concurrent findings of the lower fora on facts, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors  (2016) 8 Supreme Court Case 286 held:

“17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

28.   The findings of the District Forum in CC no. 20 of 2011 vide order dated 10.04.2011 in favour of the respondent/ complainant read as below:

“The notice was issued to the opposite parties on that also but the opposite party did not appear. Therefore, ex parte order was passed against them. The complainant submitted the written arguments and list of paper no. 18/1/18/2 and a report on the pad of Sumit Motors which was issued by Sumit Motors to the complainant. After the perusal of this paper no. 18/2 dated 21.03.2012 it is clear that it is mentioned in this that ‘the car was sent to us”. Our mechanic told after checking that the engine was damaged due to heating.

In this way the facts stated in the complaint are provide ex parte from the evidence and affidavit present by the complainant and evidence on record and it is also established that the complainant as consumer has been harassed physically and mentally by the opposite parties and specifically by opposite party no.1 and after receiving the full price of the disputed car the registration certificate and insurance certificate of the disputed car has not been provided to the complainant as per the rules due to which the complainant could not operate the disputed car according to rules and after paying full price of the car the complainant could not use the car and during this the car also became defective. There was defect in the car’s engine and the record regarding the defect given by the complainant to the opposite party which on the pad of Sumit Motors is available on record which makes it clear that according to the mechanic of the opposite party the engine of the car got damaged due to heating in spite of this the opposite party neither got the defect repaired not provided the facilities to the complainant which he was entitled for as consumer.

In this way the facts stated in the complaint are completely established on the basis of above said analysis and the one sided evidence available on record and the complaint is liable to admitted. The complainant is liable to get a new defect free car in place of the disputed car and with the registration certificate and insurance certificate.”

(Emphasis added)

29.   Accordingly, the order states that;

“opposite parties are directed to make available the new defect free car in place of the disputed car within one month from the date of the order and also pay Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and litigation cost within the same time limit to the complainant.

In case of being unable to provide the new defect free car the opposite parties are directed to pay the full price paid by the complainant along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the complainant till the date of the payment.”

30.   The order of the State Commission in appeal no. 1831 of 2012 confirmed the order of the District Forum recording as below:

“On perusal of present case it is clear that the car was delivered to the complainant on 22.10.2010 and after few days only the noise started coming from its engine. Opposite party neither got the car insured nor gave the registration paper for long time. The Maruti Company itself sent the engineer on 04.01.2011 for checking the car. The tyres etc., of the car were changed on 21.09.2011. After perusal of record it is also clear that the complainant gave an affidavit of this effect that after the judgment of District Forum, opposite parties said that the Maruti Car fair was being conducted in which his car would be replaced. On the date of fair, the Managing Director of opposite party company himself gave assurance of the car being replaced within seven days. In spite of this the car was not replaced. It is clear from this that opposite party company itself admitted that there was manufacturing defect in the car and even after giving assurance again and again the car was not replaced, which falls under the unfair trade practice. Probably, this is the reason that Manager, Sumita Motors and Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., did not file any appeal. After seeing these facts there is no need of the expert report because the fact of manufacturing defect in the car is established from the circumstances of the case.

On the basis of the above said analysis we conclude that the District Forum, after considering all the facts, directed the opposite parties to give defect free car or pay the entire price paid by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and there is no justification to interfere with the judgment.

Consequently, there is no force in the present appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

In addition, it has also imposed a cost of Rs.5000/- on the complainant as cost of the appeal.”

(Emphasis added)

 31.  For the reasons stated above, the petitioner’s arguments do not sustain on the grounds urged except that the procedure under section 13 of the Act has not been adopted by the District Forum. By no stretch of imagination could an impression/ opinion  of a mechanic in a workshop have been concluded be an ‘expert opinion’ as mandated under the Act. From another perspective, the opinion of the mechanic relates to the over-heating of the engine, whereas the forum below has ordered the replacement of the suspension of the vehicle in question. No co-relation between the two has been established in the so-called expert opinion. However, be that as it may be, the procedure under the Act in Section 13 and 14 has clearly not been followed in this case. The conclusion of there being a manufacturing defect is therefore, flawed, both technically and legally.

32.   In view of the foregoing, the revision petition is liable to succeed. The petition is accordingly, allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside. No order as to costs.

33.    This order also disposes of revision petition no.2107 of 2016 in the above terms.