JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The case of the petitioner / complainant is that a machine purchased by him from the respondent was faulty and had gone out of order atleast 12-13 times within ten months.  Being aggrieved the petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, which was resisted by the respondent.  The respondent claimed that there was no defect in the machine.

2.      The District Forum vide its order dated 17.11.2016, directed as under:

          “1.     The respondent is directed to send a technician at the workshop of the complainant and remove the fault in the machine, if any, free of cost.  If any part of the machine is required to be replaced it should also be replaced with new part free of cost.

          2.      The respondent is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for suffering mental agony and costs of the complaint.

          3.      The aforesaid order must be complied within one month.”

3.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, they are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

4.      Admittedly, no technical evidence was led by the petitioners / complainants to prove that the machine supplied to them suffer from a manufacturing defect.  Considering the denial on the part of the respondent and in the absence of technical evidence, it cannot be said that the machine supplied to the petitioners had some inherent manufacturing defect in it.   In any case, the District Forum has already directed the respondent to depute a technician to remove the defect in the machine free of cost.  The respondent has also been directed to replace the part, if any, required to be replaced, free of cost.

5.      If the respondent does not remove all the defects in the machine and does not replace the defective part, if any, in the machine, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek execution of the order passed by the District Forum, under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.  However, the directions given by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission do not call for any modification or interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

          The revision petition stands disposed of.