Per Hon’ble Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
Heard Mr.Arun Sontakke-Advocate for the revision petitioner. Mr.Ashutosh Marathe-Advocate undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos.1(A) & 1(B) during the course of the day. Notices have been sent to respondent nos.2(A) & 2(B) on 16/03/2012. It has not come back with any postal endorsement.
This revision petition takes an exception to an order dated 16/11/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.262/2009. Facts leading to this revision can be summarized as under:-
Revision petitioner had filed consumer complaint alleging manufacturing defect of the vehicle. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had directed revision petitioner and the opponents to send the vehicle to Automotive Research of India (ARAI) for the inspection and both the parties were to borne the expenses equally. Said order was challenged by the revision petitioner in the State Commission and State Commission had dismissed the revision directing the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to consider the application of the complainant on merits.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has considered the application filed by the revision petitioner and confirmed its earlier order. Aggrieved by the said order, original complainant has filed this revision petition.
We heard Ld.counsels for the parties. Revision petitioner is alleging that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is the responsibility of the revision petitioner to prove his case u/sec.13(1)(c) and ARAI is proper technical authority for giving opinion on the subject. We do not find any merit in the revision filed by the revision petitioner. Hence we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Revision petition is dismissed.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 9th April, 2012.
