National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): <\/b>A Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dinesh Singh (Member), disposed of a case centered around a car and its defects. and due to its longevity, the car was not so feasible, at this stage in time, to remand back to the District Forum for decision afresh on the (principal) question of \u2018defect\u2019 in manufacture as 14 years has passed since it was first brought in the District Forum and now it cannot be put to test before an \u2018appropriate laboratory\u2019, to determine that \u2018defect\u2019 as laid down in the provisions of the \u2018The Consumer Protection Act, 1986\u2019.<\/p>\n
In this case, the appellant had filed a case in the District Forum, Yamunanagar in 2005, for manufacturing defects in a car. The District Forum allowed the complaint and also issued directions to replace the car or refund the amount of the car with interest to the aggrieved party, When the appeal went on to the State Commission it allowed the petition and ordered the company to remove the defects “if any”.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The NCDRC with regard to the decision said that the District Forum should have first decided if the purchaser i.e. the Revisionist Petitioner was a “complainant” in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of \u2018The Consumer Protection Act, 1986\u2019 or not. Also, the National Commission made a remark that the District Forum should have referred the goods to the appropriate laboratory under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act for the determination of defects.<\/p>\n The National Commission in its judgment remarking about the State Commission said that though it rightly concluded that \u2018defect\u2019 in manufacture cannot be made out now, but it erred in not remanding the case back to the District Forum for decision afresh, to decide the question of \u2018defect\u2019 in manufacture after duly adopting the procedure prescribed in Sections 13(1)(c) to (g) of the Act and also it termed the order of the State Commission as \u201cunreasoned\u201d, \u201csuffering from incongruity\u201d and \u201cinner-inconsistency\u201d.<\/p>\n