AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The petitioner No.1 / complainant No.1 claims to have purchased a Generator set in the name of the petitioner No.2 / complainant No.2 Siddarth Pandey from the respondent. The allegation of the complainants / petitioners is that the aforesaid generator set was defective and a report with the concerned police station was also lodged in this regard on 05.9.2007. Since the generator set was not changed, the petitioners / complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the respondent, who claimed that he was only a dealer and not the manufacturer of the generator set. He also claimed that no complaint with respect to the generator was made to him by the petitioners / complainants.
The District Forum having allowed the complainant, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 29.5.2018, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainants / petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition
Admittedly, the generator in question had been manufactured by Kirloskar and not by the respondent. Since the petitioners are alleging manufacturing defect in the engine of the generator, it was obligatory for them to implead the manufacturer as a party to the consumer complaint. In the absence of the manufacturer, the allegation of the manufacturing defect in the engine of the generator could not have adjudicated by the District Forum.
There is no evidence of the petitioners having even approached the respondent for removing the alleged defect in the generator or for replacement of the said generator. If the petitioners had a grievance against the respondent on account of the alleged manufacturing defect in the generator, they ought to have approached him, seeking replacement of the generator, in order to enable the respondent to take up the matter with the manufacturer. That having not been done, the petitioners cannot have any claim against the respondent for the alleged manufacturing defect in the generator.
Admittedly, no technical evidence was produced by the petitioners before the District Forum to prove the alleged manufacturing defect in the generator or its engine. Even the District Forum did not make an effort to obtain a technical opinion in this regard. The onus was upon the petitioners/complainants to prove the alleged manufacturing defect in the generator. No technical evidence having been produced by them, they failed to discharge the onus placed upon them.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.