ORDER :

1. Leave granted. In this appeal, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside order dated 4.4.2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short. 'the National Commission') in Revision Petition No. 3642/2009 whereby the directions contained in the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Morena (for short, 'the District Forum') in CC No. 119/2007 were substantially modified.

2. The Appellant, who is a physically challenged person, purchased a Vikram 750 Delux three wheeler auto from Nawal Auto Sales, Morena (respondent No. 3) by availing loan of ` 1,95,000/-. She started plying the vehicle for earning her livelihood. When the vehicle was serviced by the dealer, i.e., Respondent No. 3, the Appellant noticed cracks in the chassis. She brought this to the notice of Respondent No. 3 and demanded replacement of the vehicle with new one. However, instead of making available new vehicle, Respondent No. 3 got the cracks repaired and returned the vehicle to the Appellant. After some time, the chassis of the three wheeler again broke. This time, the dealer neither carried out the repairs nor replaced the vehicle.

3. The Appellant served legal notice dated 09.08.2007 upon the Respondents and claimed replacement of the vehicle and compensation of ` 10,000/-.

4. Having failed to evoke any response from the Respondents, the Appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prayed for issue of a direction to the dealer and the manufacturer to replace the vehicle. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint, the Appellant made the following averments:

4. That the Defendant No. 1, aforesaid vehicle three wheeler Auto Vikram. 750 Delux the chassis whereof was broken from the company itself, and the above said vehicle is in condemned position and the Defendant No. 1 intentionally gave to the Plaintiff vehicle with broken chassis and there are mechanical defects in the vehicle, and when the Plaintiff got the above said vehicle driven, then there was difficulty in the operation of the vehicle and when the Plaintiff saw, its chassis was broken. The Plaintiff purchases the vehicle from Defendant No. 1 on 08.05.2007 and on date 10.05.2007 at the time of taking away the vehicle, the chassis was found to be broken. The Plaintiff told the Defendant No. 1 as to why you have given the vehicle with broken chassis. You give me the new vehicle, hut the Defendant No. 1 by not giving the new vehicle, by changing to the Plaintiff, got the broken chassis welded, and gave this in writing that whatever welding work has been done in the vehicle, in case, there will be any difficulty in that, then its payment shall be made by the company, but by the Defendant No. 1, by not giving the vehicle, duly changed, gave the vehicle with broken chassis.

5. That because of the Plaintiff being handicapped, for her maintenance had purchased the above vehicle, but after the vehicle of the Plaintiff being got welded done, the chassis broke again. The Plaintiff again made complaint to the Defendant No. 1 with the welded chassis, has again broken, but by the Defendant No. 1, by not giving the above said vehicle by changing, again got it welded and the Defendant No. 1 told this to the Plaintiff that in case you have to take the above vehicle, take, we will not give the second vehicle; became bent upon quarrelling. It was stated by the Plaintiff that she has purchased this vehicle from you, has paid the money, you are the dealer of the company, but by the Defendant No. 1, by getting the broken chassis welded, gave it against. From the above said date, the above vehicle of the Plaintiff is standing at home. The Plaintiff is not capable of getting the business done through that vehicle. The rims of the wheels of the Auto of the Plaintiff are of poor quality and have mechanical defect. The body is also weak. Defendant No. 1 by playing fraud with the Plaintiff has intentionally given the above said vehicle of th