Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President — These 3 appeals arise out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore dated 5.3.92 in O.P. 142/92. Opposite parties 3 and 4 are the appellants in A.P. 223/92, the complainant is the appellant in A.P. 240/92 and the first opposite party is the appellant in A.P. 241/ 92.

2. The facts are these : The complainant has purchased a Montana Diesel Car from the third opposite party who is the authorised dealer of the manufacturer who is the first opposite party, The second opposite party is the Director of the first opposite party and the 4th opposite party is the partner of the third opposite party. The Diesel car was delivered on 28.3.91 and ever since it was giving trouble. The complainant called upon the third opposite party to rectify the defects. Though the third opposite party promised to rectify the defects, it did not have trained personnel or equipment to effect the repairs. The complainant wrote registered letters on 10.4.91,12.4.91 and 13.4.92, but in vain. On 20.4.91 he called upon the first opposite party to take back the vehicle and refund the amount. There was no response. The complainant had to spent Rs. 40,000/- for repairs. He claimed refund of the amount and compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

3. The opposite parties denied all these allegations of defect and deficiency of service.

4. The District Forum accepted the contention of the complainant, but held that the repairing charges would come to Rs. 24,000/- only. It directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. Aggrieved by this order the complainant, first opposite party and opposite parties 3 and 4 have preferred separate appeals.

5. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the complainant has not established any manufacturing defect. It is not necessary under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act that there has been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold to the purchaser. It is enough that there are defects as defined in Section 2(1)(f) of the Act which defines “defect” as any fault, in perfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. The complainant has examined himself as PW1 and one Mr. Veluchamy as PW2. The said Veluchamy is a car mechanic. They have been examined and cross-examined in extenso. The Forum below has analysed their evidences and came to the conclusion that the car suffered from various defects. We have gone through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and we find no ground to differ from the conclusion of the District Forum. We hold that the car manufactured by the first opposite party and supplied by the third opposite party suffers from various defects.

6. The District Forum has considered the defects in detail and come to the conclusion that the expenses for rectifying the defects will come to Rs. 24,000/- only. We have gone through and the judgment of the District Forum on this aspect we find that the District Forum has considered each defect separately and held that a sum of Rs. 24,000/- will be sufficient to rectify the defects. The claim of the complainant for Rs. 40,000/- is unsustainable.

7. The Forum below has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- as claimed by the complainant. We find that this amount of compensation for mental agony and loss is quite reasonable. There is no need for any interference on this score also.

8. In the result all the appeals failed and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.