The requirement of substantial evidence to support claims of manufacturing defects in consumer protection cases is essential for claims to be upheld.

1. This revision petition has been filed under S.21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ˜Act) against the order dated 25.1.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ˜the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 90 of 2012.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 / complainant had purchased a three wheeler scooter (Vikram 410 G make) bearing registration number DL - 1 LH - 2898 from the petitioner in November 2006 for a price of Rs 1,45,108 excluding insurance charges. The complainant paid Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 95,150 was financed by respondent No. 2. The balance of Rs 14,958 was to be paid by the respondent no. 1 by 2.1.2007. On 2.1.2007 the respondent No. 1 issued a cheque of Rs. 11,658 towards the balance amount and left the three wheeler in the premises of the petitioner. He then filed a consumer complaint (No. 78 of 2007) in the District Forum, Faridabad alleging that the threewheeler purchased by him had developed serious manufacturing defect and had become unfit for plying on 5.11.2006 and thereafter again on 20.11.2006. It was alleged that the respondent refused to replace the said vehicle even though it was within the guarantee period. The petitioner in his reply contended that the respondent No. 1 had not paid the full price of the vehicle as the cheque of Rs 11,658 was dishonoured and there was no manufacturing defect as no complaint had been made by the respondent on this account. It was submitted that the vehicle had been abandoned at the premises of the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 as he was an employee of the IDBI Bank and because the contract with the company for engaging the three wheeler had been terminated. The vehicle had been taken possession of by the respondent No. 2 as the financier and it was he who delivered the vehicle to a third party who paid the balance loan installments. It was also contended that as the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, the Act was not applicable.

3. In consumer complaint No. 78 of 2007 filed by respondent No. 1, the District Forum, Faridabad passed the following order on 19.10.2011:
6. There is no dispute that the complainant purchased a three wheeler from respondent No. 1 somewhere in November 2006 which developed a defect and became unfit for running on 5.11.2006. It was taken to respondent No. 1 who effected the repairs and handed over the three wheeler to complainant. But again on 20.11.2006 the three wheeler became unfit for running. The complainant left it with respondent No. 1 and since then it has been lying in the custody of the said respondent. The three wheeler was within the guarantee period when it became unfit for running on the road.
7. So it is clear from the unrebutted evidence of the complainant that the three wheeler purchased by him from respondent No. 1 had serious manufacturing defect on account of which it became unworthy of running on the road shortly after its purchase by the complainant. Since 20.11.2006 the three wheeler has been lying in the custody of respondent No. 1. The respondent is therefore, liable to replace the said three wheeler with a new one of the same make without asking for any more price from the complainant.
8. Resultantly, respondent No. 1 is directed to replace three wheeler of complainant bearing No. DL 1 LH 2898 with a brand new three wheeler of the same make without asking for any more amount towards the price of the three wheeler and respondent No. 1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 to the co