The judgment established the principle that the determination of manufacturing defects under the Consumer Protection Act is crucial in deciding the appropriate relief to be granted to the consumer.

ORDER

S.K. Naik, Member - Petitioner Rakesh Gautam was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal, M.P. (District Forum for short). He projected a grievance before the District Forum stating that as an unemployed youth he obtained a loan from the Bhopal Nagrik Sahkari Bank and purchased a Tata 407 Chassis for Rs. 3,44,676 and built a body thereon spending another sum of Rs. 1,15,000. The vehicle thereafter was registered with the Regional Transport Officer, Bhopal. The petitioner-complainant himself possessed a driving licence. Soon, however, he experienced the vehicle giving him trouble; in particular, it was lacking in its pulling power and he had to repeatedly apprise the dealer-respondent No. 1 (M/s. . Sanghi Brothers Ltd.) about the same. The dealer-respondent No. 1 had conveyed him that the defects being of inherent manufacturing nature, he would be well advised to approach the manufacturer, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in the matter. The petitioner-complainant thereafter approached the manufacturer, both at their Regional Office at Indore and Head Office at Mumbai, but of no avail. Finally, the petitioner-complainant was informed on the 30th of July, 1997 that he was free to take legal action.

2. Contending that because of the defects in the vehicle he was not able to make proper use of the vehicle and earn from its operation resulting in his inability to repay the instalments of loan, for which Bank seized the vehicle on 14th of May, 1999; the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum, relying upon the report of Mr. S.C. Gupta, a Mechanical Engineer, held that it was a case of manufacturing defect and directed the opposite parties i.e. the dealer and the manufacturer to take back the vehicle and refund Rs. 4,59,676 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the 3rd of January, 1997. It also awarded a cost of Rs. 500 towards the litigation expenses.

3. Aggrieved thereupon, the opposite parties (the respondents herein) filed an appeal before the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (State Commission for short), who, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, while agreeing with the view of the District Forum that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle, differed with the order of refund of cost of the vehicle with interest and held that the opposite parties/respondents under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for short) should first rectify the defects in the vehicle and provide a fresh warranty and only if they fail to fully rectify the defects, then the next step would be to replace the vehicle with a new one of the same model and if that was not possible, only then they would be liable to refund the amount of Rs. 4,59,676 with interest, which the State Commission held should be 6% per annum instead of 12% as ordered by the District Forum.

4. Aggrieved upon the modification of the District Forum's order from refund of the cost of the vehicle with 12% interest to rectification of the defects with a fresh warranty, the complainant has filed this revision petition for restoration of the order of District Forum.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant, Mr. Sumit Sarna, Advocate, contends that even though the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect but misdirected itself in holding that District Forum was bound to follow the relief it was entitled to order under Section 14(1) of the Act ad seriatim. Section 14(1) of the Act reads as under:

"14. Finding of the District Forum. (1) If, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations co