BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 428/2021

Sri. Chethan Kumar S/o Vittal Rao,

A/a 29 years, R/at No.55, 1^st Stage,

7^th Cross, Mninarashimaiah Garden,

Thavarekere, Bengaluru.

(By Sri. V.Siddesh, Adv.,)

……….Appellants.
 

                                          -Versus-

1.       The Manager, Tata Motors Ltd.,

4^th Floor, Ahura Centre,

82, Mahakali Caves Road,

MIDC Andheri East, Mumbai-400 093.

2.       The Manager, Prerana Motors (P) Ltd.,

          No.55/8, Hosur Road, Koodlagate,

          Bengaluru.

3.       The Manager, Prerana Motors (P) Ltd.,

          No.28, D/29, 2^nd Phase, Peenya Industrial

          Area, Bengaluru-560 058, Bengaluru.

……….Respondents

:ORDERS ON ADMISSION :

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated:23.02.2021 passed by Bangalore Rural and I Additional District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.76/2019, which dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.

2.       The complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission alleging manufactured defect in the car, whereas the Opposite Party appeared and denies the same.  After trial the District Commission in its impugned order at Para-14 has held that “in view of non filing of expert evidence regarding manufacturing defect and in view of suppressing the material fact regarding vehicle met with an accidence twice and the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction and the same was running without any trouble” and come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.  

3.       The appellant in spite of sufficient opportunities did not appear before this Commission and addressed his arguments to show how the impugned order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law.  Mere filing of memorandum of appeal is not sufficient to hold that there is a manufacturing defect on behalf of the Opposite Party without there being any submission and documents.  Moreover, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging manufacturing defect in the car, but he failed to prove the same by producing cogent evidence and relevant documents.  Hence, the appeal fails.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:- 

: O R D E R :

The appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

The impugned order dated:23/02/2021 passed by the Bangalore Rural and I Additional District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.76/2019 is hereby confirmed. 

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.

Lady Member.                                            Judicial Member.

Tss