SITA RAM Vs. MANAGER HARSH AUTO CARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum. He purchased a Bajaj Scooter from the first respondent-opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 20,350/- on 1.12.1994. The scooter was manufactured by the second respondent-opposite party No. 2. PETITIONER alleged various defects in the scooter and complaining deficiency in service. He filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum did not find any merit in the complaint of the petitioner and dismissed the same. Against that order petitioner went in appeal to the State Commission. State Commission held that there was no manufacturing defect in the scooter and whatever defects petitioner pointed out, these were duly rectified.

(2.) STILL feeling aggrieved, petitioner has come to this Commission. He says that though he has taken possession of the scooter, yet still he finds some defects which had not been rectified. This could not be so as the petitioner has given satisfactory note. We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.