Petitioner was the original complainant before the District Forum. The case of the petitioner is that he bought an auto rikshaw from OP No.2, who was the authorised dealer of OP No.3, which was financed by OP No.1 on 5.6.1999. Later, complainant found that the auto delivered to him was an old one. He requested for replacement of the old vehicle with a new one. His request was accepted and the vehicle was replaced with new one. According to the complainant, the replaced vehicle was also not working properly. Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed. The State Commission held that there was no manufacturing defect. The defect, if any, crept in due to overloading of the vehicle in question and lack of maintenance. OP No.2 had taken care of the vehicle as and when vehicle was brought to the garage. The onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect on the petitioner but the petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove the same. The District Forum had appointed Tata Commercial Automobiles to examine the vehicle, who filed examination report on 16.6.2003 and as per report no manufacturing defect in any manner was found therein. Sh. H.N. Srivastava, Work Manager, stated in the report that nothing could be known as to what was the defect in the engine or any other system leading to the vehicle being subjected to becoming non-operational. Based on the report of the expert, the fora below held that there was no manufacturing defect. The findings recorded by the fora below are finding of fact, which are based on the report of the expert, which cannot be interfered with, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
