Petitioner/complainant purchased an autorikshaw after raising a loan. According to him the autorikshaw supplied to him was defective. Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum vide its impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to carry out the repairs in the autorikshaw and, if necessary, to change the defective parts without charging the petitioner for the same. Petitioner was directed to take the autorikshaw to the garage of R-2 within a week for repairs. Both the parties were directed to file the status report. Being aggrieved petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission by the impugned order upheld the order of the District forum. We agree with the view taken by the fora below. As there was no manufacturing defect only direction which possibly could have been given was to direct the respondent to remove the defects. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the petitioner to take the autorikshaw to the garage of R-2 who was directed to carry out the repairs. The District Forum in order to see that the order passed was implemented directed the parties to file the status report. It seems that the petitioner did not take the autorikshaw to the R-2 as a result of which no status report has been filed. Petitioner is given another chance to take the autorikshaw to the garage of R-2 within two weeks. R-2 is directed to carry out the repairs in terms of the directions issued by the District Forum. R-2 after carrying out the repairs is directed to file the status report before the District Forum in terms of the directions issued by the District Forum. In view of this position revision petition stands dismissed.