PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No.232 & 507/11 M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Abdul K. Rubb by which, while dismissing appeal of both the parties, order of District Forum allowing complaint was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased car KL-7BF 1255 from OP No.2/Petitioner No. 2, which was manufactured by OP No. 1/Petitioner No.1. During driving of the vehicle, complainant found problem in brake system. OP No. 2 failed to rectify defects in the brake system which is a manufacturing defect. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint for replacement of the vehicle along with compensation. OP No. 1 submitted that technical team of the OP conducted detailed inspection of the car, but found no defect in the car and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 filed written statement and submitted that at no point of time, OP represented complainant that vehicle would stop at the point whenever the brake is applied at a speed of 120-140 km/hr. It was further submitted that OP examined the brake and found the same proper and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties partly allowed complaint and directed OP to install A.B.S. (Anti-Lock Brake System) in the car of the complaint free of cost or in the alternate to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation being cost of the A.B.S. Complainant and OP filed appeals before the State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed both the appeals against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and authorized representative of respondent finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that car was not sold with A.B.S. system and complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect in the brake system; even then, learned District Forum has committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, authorized representative of respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that vehicle was sold without A.B.S. system as per certificate for additional compliance to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. When the car was not sold with A.B.S. system, there was no question of directing OPs to install A.B.S. system in the car free of cost or pay money in the alternate. 6. As far as manufacturing defect in the brake system is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards inspection report prepared by Mr. Jayaprasad V.V., Lecturer in Automobile Engg. In this report, three tests were conducted at the speed of 100km/hr. In first test car stopped at a distance of 86.5 meters whereas in the second test car stopped at a distance of 51.6 meters and in the third test car stopped at a distance of 44.1 meters. Thus, it becomes clear that stopping of vehicle depends upon the application of brake and car will stop at a distance according to the pressure applied on brakes and by perusal of this inspection report it cannot be inferred that there was any manufacturing defect in the brake system. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention towards cross-examination of the witness who admitted that if brake is applied at 100 km/hr. speed, in normal course, vehicle should stop at 180 meters. In the case in hand, vehicle stopped at 86.5 meters, 51.6 meters and 44.1 meters respectively in three tests. In such circumstances, no manufacturing defect in the brake system can be inferred. 7. This witness also admitted in cross-examination that this inspection report does not state about load, road conditions, tyre pressure. At the time of inspection, these factors are very relevant for examining brake system and any report given without considering these factors, inspection report has no evidentiary value. He also admitted in the cross-examination that he has not studied about brake system of modern vehicles at academic level. He also admitted that he was never associated with the servicing or testing of luxury cars. He also cannot say about the type of braking system used in the disputed vehicle. 8. Perusal of statement clearly reveals that inspection report given by the witness V.V. Jayaprasad cannot be relied and on the basis of this report, no manufacturing defect in the braking system of vehicle can be inferred. 9. In the light of above discussion, we find that learned District Forum has committed error in treating manufacturing defect in the braking system and directing OP to provide A.B.S. system free of cost. Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and impugned order dated 20.6.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.232/2011 M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Abdul K. Rubb and order of District Forum dated 8.4.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.183/09 is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- ( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..d/- ( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER It is observed further that the complaint mentions about problems in brake-system of the vehicle. The complainant has not stated that ABS system of brake should be installed. In the interest of justice, the petitioner no. 1, should depute a suitable technical personnel to inspect the vehicle and rectify the defect, if any and ensure that it is a defect-free vehicle. ..Sd/- ( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER