In the case of defective goods supplied within the warranty period, the proper relief is total replacement. However, in exceptional circumstances, the court may direct the refund of the price of the goods.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — This case stands concluded in favour of the complainant by the earlier detailed order of this Commission in Complaint Case No. 25 of 1991, Surinder Singh of Chandigarh v. M/s. Wheel World, Ambala Cantt. &. Ors., decided on the 18th of May, 1992. It therefore, suffices to notice the facts and the merits with relative brevity.

2. Shri Jai Dev Sharma, complainant had purchased a Montana (diesel) car for Rs. 1,28,000/- from M/s. Wheels World, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt. on the 6th of July, 1990: The vehicle was insured on that very day with M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ambala Gantt. and the car was registered as HR-16-1933. The said vehicle was duly got serviced by the authorised dealers of opposite party No. 1 at Rohtak and it is the stand that from the very beginning it disclosed inherent defects. However, on the 17th of September, 1990, the vehicle stopped dead on the road and apparently because it was beyond repair, it had to be loaded in a truck and brought to the premises of M/s. Wheels World, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt. They took it over for executing the necessary repairs. However, for well nigh three months, the said car could not be repaired despite repeated entreaties of the complainant. To crown it all, on the 11th of November, 1990, a fire broke out in the premises of opposite party No. 1 and the vehicle was virtually burnt down. Thereafter, opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to complete the formalities regarding the insurance claim and despite his earnest efforts to have the matter finalised, the same could not be done for almost one year thereafter. On the 22nd of January, 1992, the complainant received a letter from the Insurance Company, opposite party No. 3, asking for some further documents which were supplied. But because of the lack of cooperation by opposite party No. 1, no redress was made available to the helpless consumer-complainant. After waiting for a well nigh one year and six months, from the date of the delivery of the vehicle to opposite party No. 1, the complainant has been compelled to knock at the door of this Commission for relief. In terms, the cost of the car i.e., Rs. 1,28,000/- alongwith the loss of accessories, expenses, mental harassment etc. a total claim to the tune of Rs. 1,87,000/- is raised.

3. In the written statement filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, some preliminary objections have been taken to which a reference is unnecessary because they were not seriously pressed. On merits, the sale of the car to the complainant was admitted and also the fact that on the 17th of September, 1990, the vehicle could not be started and was loaded from Rohtak and finally left with opposite party No. 1 for purposes of repairs. The complainant was informed about the serious defects in the engine and assurances were held out for doing the needful and delay was sought to be explained on the ground of short supply of vehicle spare parts. Para No. 4 of the complaint was admitted whilst the averments in para 7 were partly admitted. Whilst controverting paragraph Nos. 5 and 6, the liability was sought to be shifted on the shoulders of the insurers. Liability was attempted to be evaded on the ground that the vehicle was delivered to opposite party No. 1 but the warranty period stood expired. It was further admitted that a fire broke out in the premises of the opposite party No. 1 but apparently because the defective engine had been removed from the body, the same escaped the damage whilst the rest of the car burnt down. It was the plea that the price of the said engine assembly is Rs. 37,000/- and were ready and willing to deliver the same over to the complainant. On these grounds, responsibility was evaded on the part of opposite party No. 1 whilst virtually making no relevant averment on behalf of opposite party No. 2. In essence, the burden was sought to be passed on to opposite party No. 3, the Insurance Company.

4. In the written