National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chandeshwar Kumar vs Tata Engineering Loco Motive Co. Ltd. ... on 1 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)CPJ2(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
2. Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainant who purchased a 'Bus' under Hire-Purchase Agreement, manufactured by TELCO, allegedly, developed defects with great regularity causing disruption in the running of the vehicle as also frequent visits to the workshops and making payments for repairs and spare parts. When the matter was taken up with the respondents and it was not getting sorted out, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the material on record. Firstly, there is no expert opinion on record as to whether the vehicle has any manufacturing defect. In fact State Commission has gone on to record that the petty repairs carried out by the complainant by paying negligible amounts on filters, gear lever, radiator, engine oil, steering, etc. worth Rs. 5 and other another expenditure amounting to Rs. 40 which in any case shall not help the complainant to prove the case /allegation of the vehicle having any manufacturing defect. No additional material or evidence has been brought before us to prove this allegation, of the vehicle having any manufacturing defect, in the absence of which, like State Commission, we are of the view that the appellant/ complainant has failed to prove his case and the appeal as well as complaint has no legs to stand on its own.
4. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find that the State Commission was quite right in dismissing the complaint. The said order does not call for any interferencce as no new material has been brought before us to take any different view than the one taken by the State Commission.
5. This appeal has no merit, hence dismissed.