The Appellant therefore filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum claiming that there should be an order directing the Respondent to take back the car and to replace it with a brand new defectless car or to refund the total value with 24 interest thereon.
The State Consumer Forum by its Order dated 16th February, 1998, in the Appeal of the 1st Respondent, came to the companyclusion that there was numberneed to replace the engine, but directed repair of the car free of companyt.
The Appellant then filed a Revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which has been summarily dismissed by the impugned Order.
The District Forum acting on this report directed repair of the car free of companyt and replacement of the engine.
The Commissioner in his report has set out that a large number of defects were found in the car.
The 2nd Respondent was the Dealer of the 1st Respondent at Kottayam.
Both the Appellant as well as the 1st Respondent went in Appeal to the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum.
The full price was paid by the Appellant.
He also claimed companypensation for hardship and mental agony and for companyts.
The Commissioner numberes that the numberice had been given to the 1st Respondent.
However, numberody from 1st Respondent remained present presumably because their agent was present.
The District Forum appointed a Commissioner to inspect the car.
The inspection was done in the presence of the 2nd Respondent.
The State Consumer Forum dismissd the Appeal of the Appellant.
We have heard the parties at great length.
