AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission allowing the appeals of the respondents who had alleged defect in the autorikshaw manufactured by the petitioner-opposite party. When the District Forum on the complaints filed by the respondents had dismissed, the complaints on the ground that they were barred by limitation. District Forum though had held that autorikshaws purchased by the complainants were not road-worthy and the complainants sustained heavy losses and were entitled to refund of the price of the autorikshaws from the petitioner-opposite party. There was batch of complaints before the District Forum which were all dismissed on the ground of limitation but allowed by the State Commission.
THERE is a concurrent finding that autoriksaws purchased by the respondents complainants had manufacturing defect and were not road worthy. Complainant had purchased the vehicles raising funds from finance agencies for self-employment to earn livelihood. They could not run the vehicles, rather suffered the ignominy and proceedings against them by the financial institutions for recovery of their dues. It is difficult to see as to how it could be contended that the complaints were barred by limitation. Manufacturing defects is not found overtime. Attempts were being made to get the autorickshaws repaired but when they had given a hopleless job because of the manufacturing defect, complaints were filed. We do not think the District Forum was right in holding that the complaints were barred by limitation. We uphold the view of the State Commision. We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These revision petitions are dismissed. Revisions Petitions dismissed.