Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President—The appellant is a manufacturer of the vehicle — Challenger Motor Cycle, which was purchased by the complainant/respondent for Rs. 41,970/-. The vehicle was having wobbling problem since beginning. This defect was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2, the dealer. The respondent No. 1 took the vehicle to respondent No. 2 as many as 10 times beginning from 18.7.2001 to 1.6.2002 but the said defect could not be rectified. The battery supplied by the respondent with the vehicle was found to be manufactured in September, 1999 which was almost two years old as the vehicle was sold on 4.7.2001. The battery stopped working in June 2002. The respondent even refused to entertain the claim of respondent No. 1 by telling him that it was 33 months old. On account of deficiency in service the appellant was directed to refund the cost of the vehicle with interest @ 9% vide order dated 20.2.2004. The said order has been assailed by the appellant solely on the ground that the learned District Forum has jumped to the conclusion without obtaining technical expert opinion whether the vehicle is having manufacturing defects or not.

2. On the face of it the co