Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Chavan – President:

     Appellant is present in person.  This appeal questions the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai, whereby the Forum directed the Opponents to replace the damaged part of motorcycle and deliver the motorcycle in roadworthy condition to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of the order.  The Forum also directed the Opponents to pay damages quantified at `5,000/- with costs of `1,000/- to the Appellant.  Aggrieved thereby the Complainant has preferred this appeal.

     We have heard the Appellant in person, who states that the part of the motorcycle in question was in defective condition as it was damaged by the engineer of the Respondent when it was given for servicing.  However, he does not have evidence to show that it was damaged during the course of service.  He also states that as same part was defective it was a manufacturing defect.   Merely because of a part of the engine was defective it cannot be inferred that there was manufacturing defect.  There can be some wear and tear.  The Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the Appellant failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect and therefore, the Forum rightly ordered necessary repairs to be carried out and also directed the payment of compensation and costs.  We see no error in the order passed by the Forum and therefore, dismiss the appeal.

Pronounced on 22^nd  November, 2013.