Judgment:
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member:
1. This order shall decide two above detailed appeals which arise from the common judgment rendered by the State Forum. The facts of these revision petitions are these. Sh. Rajinder Singh purchased one Bolera Camper Dl Long 2 WD CMVR from Imperial Motors, respondent No. 1 on 20.2.2008. After sometime, the chassis of the said vehicle started rusting. The complainant of the vehicle informed respondent No. 1 about the same. The technicians also examined the vehicle. The complainant was told that the chassis of the vehicle was an old one. Consequently, the rust was appearing and had damaged the vehicle at different points. Again, there was manufacturing defect in the chassis of the said vehicle.
2. On 23.12.2008, the complainant issued notices to Imperial Motors, Bhatinda, Respondent No. 1 and Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Respondent No. 2 but it evoked no response. Consequently, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum appointed the Local Commissioner who submitted his report. The Local Commissioner confirmed the allegations made by the complainant. He opined that the identification parade which contains chassis and Engine number were not fixed/riveted as per the manufacturing norms. Again it was screwed on the body of the vehicle and created confusion about its authenticity that was a serious flaw and the OPs could not explain the same.
3. The District Forum allowed the said consumer complaint and directed the respondents to replace the vehicle with a new one with same model and with full warranty period or in the alternative refund the full costs, price of the vehicle in the sum of Rs. 4,84,000 along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of purchase of the vehicle.
4. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed separate appeals before the State Forum. The State Forum, Punjab accepted the appeals partly. The State Forum set aside the order of the District Forum and instead directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000, as compensation.
5. We have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that the order passed by the District Forum was correct and the order passed by the State Commission is untenable in law. He argued that the State Commission has erroneously, arbitrarily and illegally accepted the appeals filed by the OPs. He explained that the petitioner was awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 1,25,000 without assigning any speaking reasons.
6. All these arguments do not whittle down the value of order delivered by the State Commission, which is just, reasonable and sound. The reasons are crystal clear. The complainant has already utilized the vehicle for a period of 4 years. After elapse of this much time, he cannot turn back and ask the Commission to replace his vehicle or he should be given the same amount which he had spent 4 years back. The Compensation granted by the State Commission is just reasonable and adequate. The complainant has already been granted more than 25% of the original sale price. The revision petitions are ill-founded and are therefore dismissed.
Revision Petition dismissed.