S.C. Mohapatra, President - Opposite Party No. 1 in the complaint is appellant in this appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred 'to as ‘the Act’).

2. Complainant purchased a scooter manufactured by appellant on 22.8.1988 from Opposite Party No.2 who is authorised dealer of appellant. Within 4 months of taking delivery of the scooter, it gave trouble as a result of which he suffered harassment. This was on account of defective engine. When approaches to appellant did not yield any result complaint was filed before District Forum for replacement of the Scooter, compensation and costs.

3. After receipt of notice of complainant, appellant addressed a letter to District Forum with copy of letter dated 28.3.1990. In the letter to the District Forum it was stated that Opposite Party No.2 the dealer has been instructed to send the complete engine assembly for the purpose of inspection and conducting thorough investigation in the matter of complainant. Dealer Opposite Party No.2 addressed a letter to complainant on 4.9.1990 as follows:

“Regarding your complaint to Consumer Forum, please note that, our Principals wanted to check up your engine at their factory, to do the needful.

So, we are requested to bring your vehicle which will be returned to you within Fifteen days after thoroughly checking of your engine or necessary replacement, as will be decided by the Company. Meantime, one service vehicle will be provided to you which you shall have to return back to us”.

4. Copies of correspondence and warrantee were filed by the parties. Considering the same District Forum has held amongst others as follows:

“There is no dispute that the Bajaj Super Scooter purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Parties was defective and it is beyond repair. The complainant has been harassed as the Opposite Parties sold defective scooter to him. The complainant is entitled to replacement of the defective scooter by a new scooter in good order along with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 200/- from the Opposite Parties”.

5. Despite of validity service of notice Respondents have not entered appearance.

6. Mr. S.C. Lal, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that finding extracted earlier is not justified. In absence of any finding that there is manufacturing defect, direction for replacement of the scooter is not justified Compensation of Rs. 2000/- awarded and cost of Rs. 200/- is also assailed, when appellant’s dealer Opposite Party No.2 requested for handing over• the scooter for sending the engine and for providing an alternate service vehicle to the Respondent to No. 1 till then.

7. Impugned order is so cryptic that it does not refer to any material on record to com~ to the conclusion as extracted earlier. Therefore, we went through all the documents. After perusing the same and hearing Mr. Lal we are satisfied that S the finding as extracted is unreasonable. In case complainant respondent would have entered S appearance, we could have sorted out his grievance without further delay. Unfortunately he has remained ex-parte. There is some justification for grievance of complainant. What appellant offered after receipt of notice could have been done much before. When complainant was making grievance that he is not gelling proper utility of the scooter, dealer and manufacturer should have all ended to it It does not speak well of the manufacture. Without prejudice to his claim under the complaint, Respondent No. 1 also ought to have accepted the offer and got the engine tested. We are inclined to hold that both parties had developed revengeful spirit and depended more on the order of District Forum than settlement.

8. From the materials available, we find that spark plugs are not defective: Neither the dealer nor the engineer drove the vehicle to find out the defect. Without detecting the real cause of trouble, conduct of complainant was unnecessarily blamed. To satisfy the complainant some compon