Dr P D Shenoy, Member - This Revision Petition is filed against the order/judgment dated 4.12.1998 of the State Commission, Haryana. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The Complainant had purchased a three-wheeler from M/s Sooraj Automobiles Ltd, Saharanpur for a sum of Rs. 67,000/- on 5.6.1995 through their authorised dealer M/s Karnal Motors. The Complainant had found that the vehicle was defective in its battery, bearings, paint and the front wheel. Other reasons adduced by the Complainant for filing the complaint are: Charging Rs. 7,000/-extra and delay in delivery of the vehicle by 3-months. The District Forum directed - "OP-1 to refund the amount of Rs. 67,000/- charged from the Complainant along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of receipt till the date of refund. The Complainant has been harassed; so, we direct OP-1 to pay a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of compensation-cum-cost of litigation. The complaint against OP-2 stands dismissed, as there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and OP-2. OP-1 may seek its remedy against OP-2, if available and if so advised." As against this, M/s Karnal Motors - OP-1 went in appeal before State Commission. After hearing the parties, the State Commission held that: "Consequently, the appeal of the local dealer M/s Karnal Motors is allowed and the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Karnal is modified to the extent that Complainant - Satpal Sharma shall be entitled to recover the amount awarded to him from Respondent no. 2 M/s Sooraj Automobiles Ltd and not from Appellant - M/s Kamal Motors. Resultantly, the complaint against the M/s Karnal Motors is dismissed. However, the Appellant is directed to deliver the vehicle back to the Complainant immediately, if not already done so far. There shall be no order as to costs. Against this order, Sooraj Automobiles has come up in revision. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the vehicle suffered from minor defects, which could not be construed as manufacturing defects. The certificate given by a road-side mechanic cannot be relied upon. Moreover, M/s Karnal Motors purchased the vehicle from the revision petitioner, and the former sold it to the Complainant. Hence, there is no privity of contract between the revision petitioner and the Respondent - Complainant. Hence, the Petition may be allowed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the three-wheeler suffered from manufacturing defects, is borne out by the report of the Ishwar Motors Workshop, Kamal. The translated version of the report of the mechanic of the above workshop dated 22.11.95 reads as follows: "Engine: It sparks while running which means that it is not properly set. While running sometimes it stops and at the other time it starts working. Due to this problem, there is danger of breakage of brake. Even, the piston breakage is endangered. Because of such defect, there is danger of breakage of crankcase. Gear Box: Case of gearbox was already cracking, which was welded and painted.
a.	First and Second gears are defective;
b.	Ring of 2nd and 3rd gear is also defective;
c.	Break gear is totally damaged."
These facts have not been rebutted. Hence, it is very clear that the three-wheeler suffered from manufacturing defects. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the complaint was filed within 15 days of the purchase of the vehicle and within 4 months amendment to the complaint was filed, which was permitted. The manufacturer has filed a written statement. He has not specifically denied that there were manufacturing defects. On the other hand, he has pointed out that the provision of the Consumer Protection Act under Section 13(c) has not been followed. Section 13(c) reads like this: "Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the Complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory" It is also relevant to note that the Complainant had made the following clear-cut statement in his complaint: The vehicle delivered by the respondent to the Complainant after a long delay is defective. The following defects are there in the said vehicle:
(i)	After delivery of the vehicle, there are cracks in the painting of the said vehicle.
(ii)	Two bearings of the front wheel were broken within 15 days from the date of delivery of the vehicle. The cut-out of the said vehicle was also defective and was lying with the Respondent.
(iii)	The battery of the vehicle in question is also lying with the Respondent."
This has been corroborated by the report of the mechanic after inspection of the vehicle. The manufacturer in his written statement has not specifically denied this; hence, there is no need to proceed as per Section 13-C of Consumer Protection Act, as mentioned earlier. Accordingly, we do not see any factual and legal infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Therefore, the Revision Petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Revision dismissed.