TATA MOTORS LTD. Vs. ASHISH AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(3.) THIS Commission vide order dated 17.4.2008 rightly observed 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 by the District Forum and could have been decided effectively and successfully only after obtaining expert opinion in that behalf. It was further observed that learned State Commission ought to have accepted prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to obtain expert opinion in the matter and ultimately this Commission obtained expert opinion.