Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Appellant/complainant purchased a Tata Aria Prestige Vehicle manufactured by Respondent No.1 through its agent Respondent No.2 on 24.1.2011 for Rs.14,62,413/- after getting it financed to the extent of Rs.7,50,000/- from State Bank of Patiala. Loan was to be repaid in 5 years in equated monthly instalments of Rs.15,570/-. Alleging that within a short time of the purchase, appellant discovered that vehicle in question was suffering from certain defects including that when the vehicle was driven at a slightly higher speed, the steering wheel of the vehicle would start wobbling uncontrollably. Appellant filed the complaint against the respondent. State Commission, after a detailed discussion, came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to discharge the onus that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defects; that the appellant did not lead any evidence to prove that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle. After recording this finding, State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed Respondent No.2 to repaid and remove the defects and, if need be, replace the defective parts without any charges. Relevant observations of the State Commission read as under : “The next question ,that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the directions can be given to the Opposite Parties, for rectification of the aforesaid minor defects, existing in the vehicle, as pointed out by the complainant and replacement of defective parts, free of cost, and extension of warranty or not. In Maruti Udyog Ltd.`s. case (supra), the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that where defects in various parts of the car are established, replacement of the entire car or refund of price was not called for, but direction could be given for rectification of the defects and replacement of defective parts, could be ordered. Since the defects, referred to above, occurred in the vehicle, during the period of warranty, and were even persisting, till the date of filing of the complaint, as per the version of the complainant and keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in Maruti Udyog Ltd.`s. case (supra), such directions can certainly be given to the Opposite Parties.” Complainant, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal. Counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent has failed to prove that there were no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle was on the appellant, which he failed to discharge by leading any evidence including that of an expert. No negative burden could be put on the respondent to prove that there were no manufacturing defects. So far as the repairs are concerned, necessary directions have already been issued by the State Commission to repair the vehicle and replace the defective parts without any charges. No interference is called for. Dismissed. |
