The court emphasized that the appellants' failure to rectify a defect within the warranty period constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 20.9.2002 in Complaint No. 275/99 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’ for short) directing the appellants that they would replace the chassis of the vehicle purchased by the complainant/respondent No. 1, and also pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation besides Rs. 1,000 as cost of the complaint.

2. Indisputably, the complainant had purchased a truck ‘Cargo-709’ on 12.3.1996 for self employment, from appellant No. 2 dealer, of the said vehicle. Appellant No. 1 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. The price of the truck was paid by the complainant/respondent No. 1 after obtaining finance from the respondent No. 2.

3. According to the complainant the warranty on the said vehicle was for a period of 1½ years. It was also averred that the chassis of the said truck cracked within a year of purchase. The complainant informed about it to the dealer the appellant No. 2 on 11.3.1997 by fax and sought replacement of the chassis. It was further averred that though the appellant No. 2 dealer continued to assure the complainant/respondent No. 1 that the chassis shall be replaced, however, the said promise was not fulfilled. The complainant, therefore, sent a registered letter dated 2.2.1998 to the dealer/appellant No. 2, upon which, the dealer/appellant No. 2 sent his representative to examine the vehicle on 3.3.1998. The appellant No. 1 then wrote a letter through its Divisional Office at Nagpur intimating complainant/respondent No. 1 that there was alteration in suspension of the truck resulting in crack to the chassis of the truck, hence replacement of the chassis would not be possible, as there was breach of warranty conditions. The complainant averred that there was no alteration in the chassis and his claim was within warranty, hence by not replacing the chassis the appellants committed deficiency in service. It was, therefore, averred that the complainant was entitled to replacement of the chassis and was also entitled to compensation of Rs. 35,000.

4. The appellants by their written version resisted the complaint. According to them the warranty was for a period of one year or running of the vehicle for 67,000 kms. It was also averred that the defect in the crack of the chassis was not covered under the warranty condition of repair of parts on account of technical faults. It was specifically averred that the crack in the chassis was not a technical fault and it occurred on account of mis-handling in the usage of the vehicle, and that it was not due to any manufacturing defect. The respondent No. 2 also filed its written version and averred that it was not a necessary party as it had only financed the vehicle.

5. The District Forum in the impugned order held that the appellants committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the District Forum directed the appellants to replace the chassis of the vehicle as was prayed by the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 10,000 was also awarded to the complainant/respondent No. 1.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 1 were heard. None appeared for the respondent No. 2. The record was perused.

7. It may be stated at the outset that the original warranty has not been produced by either of the parties, though opportunity was accorded to them. A standard warranty card relating to some other vehicle has been placed on record of the District Forum, but it was stated arguments that conditions of the said warranty did not apply to the vehicle sold to the complainant/respondent No. 1. According to the complainant the warranty was for 1½ years while according to the opposite parties/appellants the warranty was for 1 year only. In any case, since the vehicle was undisputably purchased by the complainant/respondent No. 1 on 12.3.1996 and it had developed defect on 11.3.1997 i.e., within one year from the date