This revision petition challenges the order dated 02.03.2007 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, he State Commission in First Appeal no.366 of 2002. By this order, the State Commission modified the order dated 07.02.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Janak Puri, New Delhi (in short, he District Forum in complaint case no. 260 of 2001 and directed the petitioner (appellant before the State Commission) to refund the cost of the vehicle with depreciation of 10% to respondent 1 on return of the vehicle and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and injury suffered by respondent 1/complainant and cost of litigation. 2. Respondent 1 was the complainant before the District Forum. He purchased a TATA Indica DLX car from respondent/opposite party 2 (OP 2), the authorised dealer of the car manufacturer (OP 1 before the District Forum), i.e., the petitioner herein. The complainant alleged that even at the time of delivery, the car did not have the audio warning signal and reversing beeper though these facilities were mentioned in the booking brochure but for which extra money was charged. Sides of the car had black linings, which were not rectified despite assurance to do so at the time of the first free service. Just after driving 350 km, the oil of the power steering leaked out and the power windows stopped working. The car had to be towed to the workshop, where it remained for two days. Non-functioning of the power windows happened several times thereafter. At the time of the first free service, the complainant was assured that all the defects in the car, viz., coolant leakage, wheel alignment, problem with the power windows, defective central lock, improper rear view mirror, starting trouble, defective gear box, low mileage, excessive heating of the car and noisy fan belt would be rectified but nothing was done. As a result of these defects, the car had to be taken to the workshop a number of times within the period of 18 months (warranty period). The complainant wrote to the General Manager of OP 1 about these defects, which continued to recur showing that these were serious manufacturing defects and hence beyond repairs. In view of these reasons, the complainant sought directions of the District Forum to the OPs to replace his car with a new one or refund the cost of the car and to also pay him compensation for harassment and inconvenience. 3. The complaint was contested by both the OPs. It mainly claimed that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and OP 2 promptly attended to some routine problems, which were noticed from time to time in the course of regular use of the car. 4. After considering the pleadings, evidence and hearing the parties, the District Forum observed as under: P 2 has strongly argued that as and when complainant approached for rectifying the defects he was prompt in providing service and the defects were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant and in support of it he has relied on the remarks of the complainant given on the gate pass issued by OP 2. We have observed that the production of several gate pass by OP 2 by which OP 2 has tried to establish that he has provided prompt service for removing the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, normally when defects are removed, a person signs the gate pass and can ascertain the removal of defect only after using the vehicle for some more time. Immediately nobody can ascertain about the removal of defects which need certain time after driving the vehicle. Hence, we are not inclined to agree with the plea of OP 2 that merely signing the gate pass and acknowledging the vehicle received in perfect condition will amount to removal of the defects. On the contrary approaching of the complainant time and again to OP 2 with the same and similar defects establishes the fact that the vehicle in question suffers from certain inherent defects in the vehicle which OP 2 in spite of trying to rectify has failed to completely eradicate the defects. It is also observed that normally nobody would like to visit the workshop time and again just to establish that the vehicle is defective and waste his time and energy. Hence, complainant has established that the vehicle in question is defective piece and no useful purpose will be served if we direct OP to remove the inherent defects. 5. On the basis of these findings, the District Forum issued the following directions: uring the course of arguments complainant had agreed that in the event OP replace the vehicle with their new model which has been improved upon by OP he is ready to pay the balance in the cost. Moreover, as per our aforesaid observation we have already delivered that no useful purpose will be served in directing the OP to remove the defects, which OP has in fact failed to remove in spite of the complainant taking the vehicle in the workshop of OP on various occasions. In the result we direct OP to replace the vehicle in question with a new model and charge the complainant the difference of price between the model supplied earlier and the replaced model. There is, however, no order as to cost and compensation. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner (OP 1) went up in appeal before the State Commission, which modified the order of the District Forum as noticed above. 7. The observations of the State Commission in arriving at its findings are worth reproducing: . The impugned order has been assailed firstly on the ground that there is no manufacturing or inherent defect in the vehicle and it was not at all a case of replacement of the vehicle by a new vehicle, and secondly, that the nine gate passes issued by respondent no. 2, before the District Forum show that every time defects were pointed out by the respondent, the same were removed to the satisfaction of the respondent. Besides this, job cards also show that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In support of his contention that unless and until the vehicle suffers from inherent and manufacturing defects, it is not liable to replace the vehicle, the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of (i) Mahendra and Mahendra vs B. G. Thakurdesai, 362 (NS) National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases 1986-94; (ii) Telco Ltd. and Anr. vs Gajanan Y. Mandrekar, (1977) 5 SCC 507; and (iii) Telco. Ltd. And Anr. vs M. Moosa, 1367 (NS) National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases 1986-94. 5. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions is that if some part of the machine suffers from some defects and that part can be replaced, there is no justification for giving direction to replace the entire vehicle with a new one. 6. There is no dispute that the Consumer Forum should resort to the remedy available under section 14 (1) (c) of the Act providing replacement of goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect only if the goods are in such a condition which are not useful or any such defect that renders it of no utility. 7. However, it is misconceived notion that the manufacturer of a vehicle has no liability qua the consumer in respect of the vehicle unless and until it suffers from inherent or manufacturing defects. There is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act that absolves the manufacturer of goods from the liability to compensate, having sold defective goods. The goods manufactured and sold to a consumer have to be tested on the anvil of the definition of the word efectprovided by Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act which means: ny fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract, express or implied or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any good. 8. Such a stern definition was provided by the legislature in order to arrest the tendency of the manufacturers to come out with defective goods and exploit the poor consumer. Every person purchases a new vehicle only with a view that this vehicle will not give him trouble or inconvenience for few years. If the vehicle starts giving trouble from day one forcing the consumer to visit the garage and the manufacturer time and again or once or twice in a week and continues for months together, the consumer suffers immensely in terms of physical discomfort, mental agony, harassment and emotional suffering and great injustice is done to him. The very fact that the vehicle was taken on large number of occasions for rectification and repair of several defects and they have been rectified and removed every time and again those defects erupted and the consumer was compelled to take the vehicle time and again to the garage shows that the vehicle sold to the respondent was defective vehicle as defined by Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act. 9. There is no need for the consumer to prove that the vehicle sold to him has some inherent or manufacturing defect. If such a fact is proved then the seller or the manufacturer has to replace the goods with defect free goods.[Emphasis supplied] 8. We have heard Mr. Aditya Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Kalra, learned counsel for respondent 1/complainant. No one however, remained present on behalf of the respondent 2, this Commission having dispensed with the service of notice on respondent 2 by its order dated 24.07.2007, because respondent 2 was only a dealer of the car. Both the learned counsel had furnished their respective submissions. 9. Defending the impugned order, learned counsel for respondent 1/complainant reiterated the submissions made before the Fora below and highlighted the large number of times that the car had to be taken to the workshop of respondent 2 for attending to the defects which kept reappearing. He also claimed that the gate passes reflecting the complainant satisfaction with the repairs carried out each time could not be held against him because whether the defects had been completely rectified or not could be ascertained by him only after driving the car for some time after such repairs. Mr. Kalra particularly that no purchaser of the deluxe model of a car would make such repeated visits to the dealer workshop just for leasureand the fact that the complainant had to do so several times within the warranty period could only show that the car had manufacturing/inherent defects that could not be rectified/repaired despite repeated attempts. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Aditya Narain pointed out in his oral (and written) submissions that before coming to any finding of manufacturing defects it was incumbent on the District Forum to follow the procedure mandated under section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (he Act which it did not do. Secondly, the allegations of defects of low mileage, excessive heating, steering jamming, etc., mentioned in the complaint were not supported by the description of defects mentioned in the corresponding job cards. On the other hand, the nature of the defects recorded in the job cards would reflect rough handling of the car leading to them. In the written submissions, the complaints reflected in the job cards during the period October 1999 - February 2001 were summarised as under: Sr. No. Complaint Frequency Dates 1. Oil leakage from power steering 1 time 20.10.1999 2. Power windows stopped working 5 times 20.10.1999, 10.01.2000, 17.01.2000 28.09.2000 & 27.01.2001 3. Coolant leakage 4 times 28.09.2000, 17.01.2001, 27.01.2001, 13.02.2001 4. Wheel alignment 2 times 04.02.2000, 28.09.2000 5. Defective central lock 3 times 28.09.2000, 17.01.2001 & 27.01.2001 6. Improper rear view mirror 1 time 17.01.2001 7. Starting trouble 1 time 27.01.2001 8. Defective gear box 1 time 27.01.2001 9. Noisy fan belt 2 times 28.09.2000 & 17.01.2001 From this Mr. Narain contended that the defects complained of could not be classified as manufacturing defects. He further submitted that under the warranty clause, the manufacturer was obliged to only repair or replace, free of charge, such parts which were defective and the parts so repaired or replaced were also warranted for quality and workmanship for a period co-terminus with the original warranty. Thus, even for proven manufacturing defects, the warranty conditions did not provide for refund of the price paid for the car. He further contended that the allegation of missing audio warning system and reversing beeper was misplaced because these were not standard fittings with the car but optional accessories for which additional payment has to be made. The allegation of black linings on both sides of the car was prima facie untenable because no prudent buyer would accept a new car with such a clearly visible defect. The allegations of deficiency in service were also baseless because every time the complainant took the vehicle to the dealer workshop with same complaints, they were attended to promptly and to the satisfaction of the complainant as reflected by his endorsements on the gate passes. He claimed that the whole complaint was mala fide as it was filed just before the expiry of the warranty period. According to Mr. Narain the fact that the complainant had been using the car for long years (as also noted in the State Commission order) would show that there was no manufacturing or inherent defects in the car calling for any directions like those given by the State Commission in its impugned order. Mr. Narain also cited several rulings of the Supreme Court as well as this Commission to emphasise the point that neither replacement of the car nor refund of its price (reduced by 10% as depreciation) was warranted in the facts of this case. 11(i) The reasons recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission for their findings of manufacturing defects in the car (reproduced above in extenso) do not establish a case of such wide ranging and severe manufacturing defects as to call for either replacement of the vehicle or refund of its price. At worst, what the admittedly recurrent malfunctioning of the power windows, coolant leakage and problems with the central locking system during the period of warranty shows is that these defects could not be rectified satisfactorily despite attempts by the dealer this could due either to defective individual components/parts and/or inadequate skills of the technician/s doing the repair jobs. However, even if they represented manufacturing defect, the warranty clause would entitle the complainant to free replacement and installation of those components/parts. (ii) On the other hand, the fact of recurrence of one defect or the other in the car, though claimed to have been attended to during the warranty period, would prove that the complainant had to suffer considerable loss of time, inconvenience and costs in just bringing the car repeatedly to the dealer garage. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that these defects were due to rough handling/mishandling of the car. However, this contention is a bald statement, without any supporting evidence whatsoever and has to be rejected. 12. Therefore, while we partly allow the revision petition and set aside the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum for replacement of the complainant car or refund of its price after 10% deduction on account of depreciation, we also direct the petitioner to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent 1/complainant for the harassment caused to him in having to approach the dealer workshop for rectification of some complaints in the car that came up repeatedly, despite the claims of having them fully attended to. This payment shall be made within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till realisation. It will be open to the petitioner to recover this amount from the dealer fully or partially according to their internal arrangement.