Petitioner No.1/opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of Bajaj Tempo Trucks and Petitioner No.2/opposite party No.1 is the dealer from whom the Respondent No.1/Complainant had purchased the vehicle.

          Complainant had purchased a tempo of Bajaj make from the opposite parties on 6.9.1999.  Some cracks were noticed on its chassis on 24.2.2000.  Thereafter, the engine was seized.  According to respondent No.1, petitioners had assured to replace the engine.  As nothing could be done, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs.2,79,000/- being the price of the tempo and Rs.80,000/- towards the loss suffered by him due to loss of business along with compensation and costs.

          On being noticed, petitioners filed a written statement.  According to the petitioners/opposite parties, there were cracks in the chassis, which were welded in the first instance and, later on, they had agreed to replace the chassis but the respondent did not bring the vehicle for replacement of chassis.  It is denied that the petitioners had ever agreed to replace the engine or that the engine had seized due to any manufacturing defect. 

District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to either replace the vehicle or pay a sum of Rs.2,79,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 23.2.2000 till its realization, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of business and Rs.5,000/- as costs.  It may be mentioned here that the petitioners had agreed to replace the chassis during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum but the complainant did not produce the vehicle.

Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which, by the impugned order set aside the direction with regard to payment of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of business and affirmed the rest of the order of the District Forum.

          Being aggrieved, present Revision Petition has been filed.

          Counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the statement made before the District Forum, states that there were cracks in the chassis, which were welded in the first instance and, later on, the petitioners agreed to replace the chassis, but the respondent did not bring the vehicle for getting the chassis replaced.  He contends that there is no evidence whatsoever regarding any manufacturing defect or the reasons for seizure of the engine; that the complainant did not lead any evidence to prove the manufacturing defects or that the engine had seized because of any manufacturing defect.  As against this, counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant states that the engine had seized because of the manufacturing defect.  Apart from the assertion made by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1/complainant that there was a manufacturing defect, he could not point out any evidence whatsoever from record to prove that there was a manufacturing defect or the reason as to why the engine had seized.  In the absence of any evidence to prove/show that there was a manufacturing defect or that the engine had seized because of such defects, it cannot be held that there was either a manufacturing defect in the vehicle or that the engine had seized because of the manufacturing defect.

          For the reasons stated above, fora below have erred in recording a finding that there was a manufacturing defect requiring the petitioner to replace the vehicle.  As such, the orders of the fora below need to be modified. 

          It is not in dispute before us that cracks were detected in the chassis during the warranty period.  Welding is no solution to rectify the cracks in a load-bearing vehicle.  Tempo bought by the complainant was a commercial vehicle, which could carry weight up to 1.2 tons.  Petitioners should have replaced the chassis as soon as it was brought to their notice that there were cracks in the chassis.  Not having done so is a clear case of deficiency in service.  Accordingly, we modify the orders passed by the fora below and direct the petitioners to pay an overall sum of Rs.1 lakh (including the interest) to the respondent No.1/complainant.  Rs.10,000/- are awarded by way of compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

          As per order dated 17.3.2003, petitioners were directed to deposit the decreed amount with the District Forum within 4 weeks.  In case, the amount has been deposited, the District Forum is directed to release a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- in favour of the complainant/Respondent No.1 and the remaining amount along with accrued interest be returned to Petitioner No.1.  In case, the petitioners have not deposited the amount as per the direction issued on 17.3.2003, in that event, the petitioners are directed to pay the sum of Rs.1,15,000/- to the respondent No.1/complainant within 4 weeks, failing which, the said amount shall bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

          Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.