Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 

2.                In this case, a consumer complaint was filed by the petitioner herein who was the original complainant before the District Forum against the respondents herein, who were OPs 1, 2 & 3 respectively, in respect of the alleged manufacturing defects in the motorcycle which persisted and could not be removed by the OPs in spite of the matter having been brought to their notice time and again.  On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the terms and conditions incorporated in the warranty are such that the replacement of the vehicle cannot be ordered nor any compensation can be justified in the matter.  The District Forum has further observed that the OPs had been attending to the complaints of the petitioner regarding the vehicle in question and making the vehicle every time fit to the satisfaction of the complainant and hence no relief can be granted in the matter since the complainant has not been able to prove the alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle.  The District Forum, therefore, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner vide its order dated 11.04.2008.  Aggrieved by the finding of the District Forum and the order dismissing his complaint, the complainant challenged the same before the State Commission in appeal.  During the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission, a report was sought from the Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh regarding the manufacturing defect, if any, in the motorcycle of the complainant. It has been observed by the State Commission in its order dated 27.07.2010 by which it has partly allowed the appeal of the complainant, that there was no expert opinion regarding the mechanical defect in the motor cycle before the District Forum.  In view of this, the State Commission has duly considered the observations made by the Professor of the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh in his report and gave the following directions, vide its impugned order dated 27.07.2010 :-

“In this view of our foregoing discussion, we do not find it a fit case for replacement of the motorcycle.  However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the harassment of the complainant and also going on problem in changing of gear of the motorcycle, we feel that under the rule of thumb, a total compensation of Rs. 5,000/- would meet the ends of justice.  Hence, we order accordingly.

In the result, appeal is partly accepted with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.  OPs/respondents jointly and severally are directed to pay to the complainant a total sum of Rs. 7,000/- within a month from the date copy of the order is received, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the said amount along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing this appeal till realization”.

3.      Not feeling satisfied with the partial relief given by the State Commission vide its impugned order, the complainant has approached this Commission through the present revision petition for enhancing the compensation by directing replacement of the defective vehicle.

4.      We have gone through the impugned order passed by the State Commission.  In our considered view, it is a well reasoned order  which has taken into consideration the report of the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, and based on that, due relief as considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case has been allowed by the State Commission vide its impugned order.  In the circumstances, we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission which would call for our interference.  The Revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to cost.