Delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Complainant/appellant purchased a Mercedes car from the respondents on 08.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs approximately.  On 02.06.2010, appellant along with his family left Chandigarh for Kasoli in Himachal Pradesh early in the morning.  While negotiating a sharp left bend at 4:30 am near Jangeshu at nominal speed, due to sudden torsion and shearing in the right side of the Tie Rod steering system collapsed leading to complete loss of frontal steering properties which caused the car to strike against an embankment (pullie) on the said road which covered a bridge.  Alleging that this occurrence manifested by the inherent quality defects in the suspension, the complaint was filed by the appellant seeking replacement of the vehicle. 

On being served, respondents took the stand that there were no manufacturing defects and that the respondents were prepared to repair the vehicle. 

Onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle was on the appellant.  Appellant did not produce any evidence to show that there was any manufacturing defect.  As against this respondents produced two reports of the experts who stated that there were no manufacturing defects.  State Commission relying upon the reports of the two experts produced by the respondent held that there was no manufacturing defects and dismissed the complaint by observing thus:

                        “The aforesaid reports, furnished by the experts are duly supported by their affidavits.   Thus, we have no reason to discard the reports of the experts, which were furnished, after thorough inspection of the vehicle. In case, the complainant, was not satisfied with the reports of experts, then he should have either filed the objections, to the same, or cross-examined the experts, but nothing was done by him.  Even otherwise, the complainant has failed to adduce any documentary evidence, to the effect, that there was some inherent manufacturing defect, in the vehicle.  Hence, this submission of the Counsel for the complainant is not tenable in eyes of law.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the steering knuckle (right side) of the vehicle got broken, due to impact of the accident and not due to any manufacturing defect, as alleged in the complaint.  Hence there was no deficiency, in rendering the service, on the part of the Opposite Parties.”

-4-

             We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Onus to prove that there were manufacturing defects was on the appellant which he failed to prove by leading any cogent evidence.  As against this respondents produced two experts who supported the plea taken by the respondents that there was no manufacturing defects.  No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.