JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The main points which revolve around the present revision petition have two prongs. Firstly, whether the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by time and secondly whether there was a manufacturing defect in the newly purchased Maruti Diesel Model Zen Motor Car, on 15.09.1999. There was guarantee for one year which was to come to an end on 14.09.2000. The complainant has paid cash consideration in the sum of Rs.4,46,622/-. 2. On 07.02.2005, the said vehicle met with a major accident. The car had collided with KSRTC Bus. The said vehicle was repaired at M/s. Indusmotor Co. Ltd. from whom the vehicle was purchased. The complainant had also obtained insurance policy with respect to the loss sustained by the complainant. 3. Again on 06.08.2000, the vehicle was stolen from the residence of the complainant and a complaint was lodged by the complainant before Attngail P.S. under Sctions 457 and 380 IPC. The car remained in the possession of the thieves for some time. The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum on 21.03.2002. According to the petitioner, it was filed 2 yearsafter the purchase of the car. Hence, it is barred by time. 4. During the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, an Expert Commissioner, Mr. Thomas K. Vadakken, who was working as an Automobile Engineer in that field, was deputed by the District Forum. The complainant was present at the inspection spot but the petitioner and 2nd respondent were absent. The Commissioner has found number of defects. The Expert Commissioner filed Exb. C-1, dated 15.10.2002. The conclusions drawn by him, the relevant extract of the said Exb. Is reproduced, as under :- . It is noted that Fuel injection pump originally fitted on the Diesel Engine was inadequate to deliver the required power to the Engine. This was the major reason for low pick up. Hence necessary alteration was made by the 2nd opposite party on the Fuel pump. This is a design/manufacturing defect. 2. The Chasis of the car is having a crack and now welded. One of the reason for the crack is the improper design of the chasis to meet the requirements of the Diesel Engine fitted on the car. The compression ratio of the Diesel Engine fitted on the Maruthi Zen Diesel Car is 23 : 1; whereas the compression ratio of Petrol engine fitted on Maruthi Zen Petrol car is only 8.8 : 1. 3. Rattling sound is high Mainly due to vibration of the Diesel Engine. 4. The Diesel Engine fitted on the vehicle is not exclusively designed for this car. Weight of the Diesel Engine is more than 75 kgs compared with Petrol Engine of Maruthi Zen. Unladen weight of Maruthi Zen Diesel is 830 kgs. Where as 755 kgs for Maruthi Zen Petrol, Difference is 75 Kgs. 5. The car was procured on 15.09.1999. With a short span of 3 years, the maintenance was done / spare parts replaced (without considering the maintenance done / spares replaced due to accident) was on the higher side. Chasis welding, Silencer welding, Steering column welding, Replacement of water pump, Regulatory Assembly, Holder S/A Rectifier, Wheel cylinders, Repair of Gear Box, are few of them. 6. Average mileage of the vehicle is approximately 19 KM per litre 5. The 2nd respondent filed objections to the said report. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the petitioner and 2nd respondent to pay the complainant one-half of the purchase price of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 2,24,311/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs, with a default clause to pay interest @ 18% p.a. 6. The appeal preferred before the State Commission which reduced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- with cost of Rs. 5000/-, as directed by the District Forum. 7. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition has been filed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present complaint is barred by time as it was filed 2 yearsafter the purchase of the Maruti Zen Car. 9. We see no merit in this argument. The complainant had sent the notice dated 26.10.1999 alleging manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Complainant had issued another notice dated 10.02.2002 wherein further request was made to the petitioner and respondent No.2 to cure the defects in the said Maruti Diesel Zen Car. The petitioner has admitted the receipt of those two notices. Those notices were replied. It was mentioned that the complainant should wait for the arrival of the representative of the petitioner. The complainant was assured that the necessary assistance would be rendered by the service representative of the 1st opp.party/petitioner. There is no inkling that the representative of the petitioner arrived there. Consequently, the complaint was filed on 21.03.2003, within the period of warranty. Consequently, it appears that the present complaint was filed within time. The warranty period was to expire on 14.09.2000. 10. Thus, this contention raised by the petitioner must be ousted out of consideration. 11. Now, we come to the question whether the car was defective. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is the complainant and nobody else who is to carry the ball to prove that the car was defective. He contended that the car had met with a major accident and the car also remained in possession of the thieves and the possibility of car being getting defective while it was in their possession cannot be ruled out. The petitioners have filed objections to the report Exb. C-1 and the same was procured by the complainant. All these arguments have left no impression upon this Commission. The most pertinent question is that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were aware of the fact that the Expert Commissioner was going to inspect the car, prior intimation of which was furnished to them. Despite of this position, the petitioner and respondent No.2 deliberately absented themselves at the time of inspection. This fact is of infinite importance. Presence at the spot would have gone a long way to place their case before the Expert Commissioner. Their absence goes to show that there is deficiency of service on their part. 12. The report of the Expert Commissioner clearly goes to show that there were manufacturing defects. The report of the Expert Commissioner towers above the rest of the evidence. 13. The Expert Commissioner also detected crack on the front left side of the chasis and the said crack was seen welded with a plate for re-forcement. The Expert Commissioner opined that the crack was developed due to vibration / impact of improper design of the chasis. It must be mentioned that the accident took place on 04.02.2000. The vehicle was repaired at the workshop of 2nd opp.party. There is no indication in the documents that in the said accident, a crack had also developed. However, the job card goes to reveal that there was a bent to the chasis. But the word rackon the chasis is missing. The broken chasis was welded on 20.03.2003. It is clear that the chasis was broken subsequent to the accident. It goes to fortify the report of the Expert Commissioner that the crack was occurred due to engine vibration, etc. It appears that the Expert Commissioner is a guileless person. There is no indication that he has got malice or inimical relations with the petitioner. 14. There is no indication that the vehicle became defective due to the theft when it was in the possession of the thieves. There is no evidence to show that the above said defects cropped out on account of improper use of the vehicle after 06.08.2000. 15. The State Commission considered the fact that the vehicle has covered a distance of more than 50,000 kms and it was having mileage of 19 kms/1 Ltr. The defects in the car were removed during the warranty period. It observed that t is true that the opposite parties rectified that the manufacturing defects during the warranty period It also took into account the Supreme Court of India authority in TELCO & Anr. Vs. Gajanam Y. Mandrekar - AIR 1997 SC 2774 and reduced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-. 16. We see no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. A person buys a car and with the expectation that it will have a smooth running/working. Due to the manufacturing defects, he had to suffer lot of harassment, mental agony and wastage of time and money. The order passed by the State Commission requires no interference. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.