This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.1087/2009 was dismissed. 2. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the Complainant had purchased a Tata Indica Car bearing Regn. No. CH-04-6428 on 19.3.2007. On 18.5.2007 the said car caught fire when it was parked in the house of complainant. The matter was reported to the Police and DDR No.53 dated 18.05.2008 was registered, copy of which is Annexure C-1. After the incident the complainant approached OP No.1 for its repair as the vehicle was under warranty and OP No.1 gave assurance for repair.It was alleged that the car had manufacturing defects right from the very beginning as its power rake and pinion power steering, steering pump were not working properly. There was also accelerator problem with the car which could not be recitified. The complainant had also got insurance policy as there was a scheme that the vehicle in case of any accident would be repaired in the authorized garage of Tata Motors and the latter would get the claim from insurance company directly. The car was having manufacturing defects which could not be rectified despite repeated visits of the complainant and ultimately he had to serve legal notice on the OP No. 1 to settle the claim, but they were putting off the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, alleging deficiency in service complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 3. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the Complainant never approached them for any alleged repairs and had concocted the whole story. The short circuit took place on 18.5.2008 and the needful was done by the OP to the satisfaction of the Complainant under warranty free of costs. Moreover, OP was not the manufacturer of the vehicle in question and even complainant had not produced any evidence to prove that the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect. The legal notice attached with the complaint was neither addressed to the OP nor the facts of the said notice were relevant to the complaint. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for parties came to the conclusion that the complaint was without any substance and dismissed the same. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/complainant was that the car was suffering from manufacturing defect as from the very beginning its power rake and pinion power steering and its steering pump was not working properly. After repair, it again started giving problem and intensity of the light used to increase and again it dropped. The RPM of the car used to increase without giving accelerator and again dropped without any change in the position of the accelerator paddle. OP tried to set right the defects but the same could not be rectified so complainant prayed for replace of the car with a new one. However, the learned counsel for respondent/OP repelled the aforesaid point of arguments. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the vehicle was suffering from the manufacturer defect. The documents attached with the complaint only show that certain parts were replaced and routine check up was made vide invoice dated 21.7.2007 and then vide invoice dated 24.10.2007 certain parts were replaced free of cost. On 20.9.2008 standard checking was made free of cost. Then there is copy of email dated 8.9.2008 which was sent to OP complaining electrical problem in the vehicle. The legal notice dated 16.6.2008 alleged to have been sent to OP is addressed to the ICICI bank and its contents are altogether different. In the first para of the complaint the date of occurrence is mentioned to be 18.5.2007 whereas the DDR is dated 18.5.2008. All this goes a longway to show that the complaint is not properly drafted. Even otherwise the complainant has not produced on file any evidence to substantiate her allegations that the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect. Without there being any expert evidence, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question was suffering from any inherent/latent defect. Thus, in these circumstances we feel that the District Forum had rightly observed that the car in question was not suffering from any manufacturing defect and complainant was not entitled to any relief. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the learned District Forum dismissing the complaint and the same is accordingly affirmed. Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
