R.N. Mittal, President — Briefly, the facts are that K. Kant, complainant now respondent No. 1 purchased a Moped from Himgiri Auto Mobile Pvt. Ltd. defendant No. 3 on 4th January, 1989 for a consideration of Rs. 7,805/-. It is alleged by him that since the date he purchased the Moped it did not work satisfactorily. Defendant No. 1 & 2 M/s Hero Honda Motors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hero Motors Ltd. were stated by him to be the manufacturers of the Moped. He pleaded that defendant No. 3 gave an assurance on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 & 2 that in case any defect arose, the same would be rectified, but inspite of his approaching the defendants many times, the defects could not be rectified. He has, therefore, prayed that the defendants be directed to either replace the Moped or refund the amount of Rs. 7,805/- paid by him to defendant No. 3 as its price.

2. Notices were issued to the defendants but no one appeared on their behalf before the District Forum. Consequently, the Forum vide impugned order dated 11.9.90 directed the defendants to replace the Moped within one month of the date of order, and in case it was not replaced, it was directed that they should pay Rs. 7,805/- Rs. 1,173/-