This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.06.2009 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, he State Commission in First Appeal no. 2715 of 2007, arising out of the order dated 14.11.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena, Madhya Pradesh (in short, he District Forum in complaint case no. 119 of 2007. 2. The respondent was the complainant and petitioners were the opposite parties (OP) 2 & 3 before the District Forum. The complainant alleged that she bought a three wheeler vehicle manufactured by Scooter India Ltd., from Nawal Auto Sales, Morena, authorised dealer of 2 & 3 (and OP 1). This vehicle she bought with a loan, for earning her livelihood through self-employment. Though she paid Rs.1,95,000/- for the vehicle to OP 1, the actual price of the vehicle was Rs.1,84,500/-. Within few days of its purchase, the chassis of the vehicle was found to be damaged. Despite her requests to replace the vehicle forthwith, the OPs declined and OP 1 merely welded the chassis and returned the vehicle. Thus, alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the complainant prayed for replacement of the aforesaid vehicle and compensation (unspecified amount) for physical, mental and financial loss suffered by her on this account. 3. By its order dated 14.11.2007, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs jointly and severally to supply a new vehicle to the complainant with corresponding fresh warranty within 30 days of the date of the order. In addition, the OPs were directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- while the complainant was directed to bear the cost of registration, insurance, etc., of the new vehicle. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the OPs went up in appeal before the State Commission. However, the State Commission not only affirmed the District Forum order regarding replacement of the vehicle but also enhanced the cost to Rs.5,000/- from Rs.2,000/-. 5. It is this order which has been challenged by OPs 2 and 3, being the representatives of the manufactures, Scooter India Ltd., by way of this revision petition. 6. We have heard Mrs. Lalita Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioners/OPs and Mr. Anoop Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondents/complainants. 7. Mrs. Kohli pointed out that the chassis of the new vehicle got damaged because the complainant had over loaded the vehicle for which she was proceeded against and fined under the provisions of sections 123 and 177 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (M. V. Act). Scooter India Ltd. had expressed its willingness to replace the defective chassis of the vehicle with a new one even before the State Commission. She further pointed out that in view of the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v Susheel Kumar Gabgotra [( 2006) 4 SCC 644], the legal liability of the manufacturer in respect of any defective/damaged component/part of the motor vehicle was limited only to replacement of that defective component/part. In other words, the petitioner could not be held legally liable to replace the entire vehicle. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/complainants submitted that the respondent/complainant suffered for a long period of time on account of the initial refusal of the petitioners (including their authorised dealer) to replace the chassis though such a request had been made by the complainant. As a result of the protracted proceedings before the Consumer Fora, the complainant (a physically challenged person) could not earn anything by deploying the vehicle almost since its purchase. In addition, she had taken an institutional loan for the purchase of the vehicle which she was hard put to repay. In such a situation, the respondent/complainant should either get a completely new vehicle with appropriate fresh warranty or the equivalent cost of a new vehicle. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. There is no doubt that the chassis of the brand new three wheeler motor vehicle broke down within a short period. Whether this was due to the alleged over-loading could not be clearly established by the petitioners merely on the strength of the challans of fines under the M. V. Act, produced by them. However, we are inclined to agree with Ms. Kohli that in view of the law on the subject laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments (including that in the case cited by Mrs. Kohli above), replacement of the defective chassis by a new one is the legally available relief to the respondent. We, therefore, direct the petitioners to replace the chassis of the vehicle with a brand new one and provide the requisite fresh warranty therefor. In addition, any repairs that may be necessary to make the vehicle completely road-worthy shall be carried out by the petitioners free of charge to the respondent. These directions shall be complied with within two weeks of the respondent bringing the vehicle in question to the premises of the authorised dealer. In addition, considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to respondent no. 1 towards the cost of the proceedings all through, within four weeks from the date of this order. It is, however, clarified that this award of cost is in the context of the special features of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent against the petitioners. 10. The revision petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms.