Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President — This is an appeal against the order the District Forum, Panaji, dated 14.8.1991 passed in complaint No. 62 of 1991.

2. The complainant, Shri M.S. Hameed approached the District Forum with the complaint that the Maruti Motor Car purchased by him on 2.11.1990 was having the defect in break system. He alleged that inspite of repeated complaints, the defect was not rectified by the Opposite Parties. The complainant, further, alleged that he had gone to Trivandrum on tour and got his vehicle checked through other various authorised service stations, still the defect was not removed. He, further, alleged that when he returned to Goa, he took his vehicle to the Opposite Party No. 1 who is the authorised dealer of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., for attending the break system. According to the complainant, even theme the break system could not be rectified. Complainant had obtained a letter from Mr. Gavin Fernandes, Works Manager, of Opposite Party No. 1 expressing his inability on 15.1.1991. The complainant, then, took up the matter to Opposite Party No. 2, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., who in turn stated that the matter has been referred to Bombay Office. Ultimately, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming compensation for the lost suffered by him such as his over stay at Kerala, business loss, loss of interest and other expenses making the total claim of Rs. 74,000/- .

3. The claim of the complainant was opposed by the Opposite Parties by filing a written statement. Opposite Parties inter alia stated that the complainant is not a consumer since he has purchased the vehicle for business purpose and that the claimed of compensation was not maintainable. The District Forum, accepting the case of the complainant had ordered the payment of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation to the complainant Hence this appeal. We have heard Shri Nadkarni for the appellants and Shri Thaly, Advocate for the respondents.

4. Shri Nadkarni contended that the District Forum should not have entertained the complaint since the complainant has stated in his complaint that he has purchased the vehicle for business purpose. It is, further, submitted that since the vehicle was purchased for business purpose, the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. According to Shri Nadkarni, the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. His contention has been opposed by the respondent stating that although it has been stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for his business, in fact the complainant wanted to convey that as he is businessman and he purchased it for his own use. It is also explained by the learned Counsel of the respondent that the word ‘business’ has been mentioned in the complaint lossely in common parlour and not within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. On going through the facts of his case, we do not find that the vehicle in question was used for taxi or for any other commercial purpose. In any case, the contentions raised by Shri Nadkarni are not correct inasmuch as the complainant had made grievance about the defective break system in the vehicle about the defective break system in the vehicle which is as regards defect in goods. The complaint was made immediately after the purchase of vehicle and within the warranty period. Therefore, the Opposite Parties were legally bound to replace the defective break system to the complainant’s vehicle immediately after the defect was pointed out. The chronological events show that the vehicle was purchased on 12.11.1990 from Opposite Party No. 1. On 15.1.1991, the complainant obtained a letter from Opposite Party No. 1 stating his inability to solve the problem. On 22.1.1991, he took up the matter with Opposite Party No. 2. On 23.1.1991, the complainant wrote to Opposite Party No. 2 and finally a complaint was filed on 21.3.1991. Rea