IMPORTANT POINT
Question regarding manufacturing defect in vehicle could be decided effectively and successfully only after obtaining expert opinion.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2256 of 2006 – Tata Motors Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 filed complaint before District Forum with an allegation that Tata Indigo Car purchased by him from OP and manufactured by OP/petitioners was having manufacturing defect. OP resisted complaint on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect. During proceedings before the District Forum, OP moved an application for obtaining expert opinion to find out whether there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or not, but the application was dismissed by District Forum and allowed complaint and directed OP to replace the car by a new car of the same model or in the alternative, to pay Rs.5,47,472.76 along with 9% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs.20,000/- for harassment and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the suit. Appeal filed by the OPs was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order deleted interest, cost and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- allowed by District Forum against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. This Commission vide order dated 17.4.2008 observed as under:-

“Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner company is a renowned manufacturer of motor vehicles for a very long period and takes all possible care to ensure that the vehicle so manufactured by it are defect-free. She submits that the question as to whether there was or was not any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question could not have been decided by the allegations and counter allegations and could only be decided effectively and conclusively after obtaining expert opinion in that behalf. This is objected to by the counsel appearing for the Respondent primarily on the ground that the order passed by the District Forum declining the application of the Petitioner was not challenged by way of appeal, etc., though an opportunity was available to the Petitioner to do so and secondly, that no useful purpose would be served at this stage by obtaining an expert opinion on this car. In our opinion, both the submissions hold no water and are liable to be rejected because in the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission the aspect of rejection of its application was highlighted as one of the main grounds for challenging the order passed by the District Forum. Further, in our opinion, the State Commission, having regard to the facts and circumstances, ought to have accepted the prayer made on behalf of the Petitioner to obtain expert opinion in the matter. We feel that it would be in the interest of justice if expert opinion is obtained in regard to the existence or otherwise in manufacturing defect in the vehicle, in question, so that the matter can be decided conclusively and more effectively. Accordingly, parties may give names of two recognised Bodies/Institutions which are equipped with such expertise and would be in a position to give report in the matter.”

In compliance of this direction, report of Transport Commissioner was received as mentioned in order dated 19.11.2008. This Commission vide order dated 11.04.2012 observed as under:

“We have perused the report wherein presence of only the respondents has been recorded. The report does not say that notices were issued to the parties. As per directions issued by this Commission on 8.5.2008, inspection was to be carried out after notice to both the parties. Since the vehicle was inspected in the absence of the petitioner without serving any notice on it, the same cannot be accepted. The Transport Commissioner