Order Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member: This is the case of Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle, which suffered from manufacturing defects and had to be continuously taken to the Service Centre for repairs even then the problem of pulling to the right side persisted. Case .of the camplainant 2. Shri. T. Nagender, the complainant, purchased a Hero Handa Splendor Motorcycle. After taking delivery .of the vehicle, the complainant realized that the vehicle suffered from inherent problems comprising starting trouble, low mileage, hard gear, improper focus lights and vibration at the speed exceeding 55 kms., etc. The motorbike while running was pulling to the right side. The accessories were also of poor quality. As directed by M/s. Venkateshwar Motors, the authorized dealer, the complainant took the vehicle to him, who rectified the problem of starting and the headlight. The vehicle continued to pull to the right side, resulting in neck and shoulder pain to the complainant as diagnosed by the doctor. As the problem persisted and the vehicle was again sent far repairs to M/ s. Venkateshwara Motors and Hero Honda Service Centre, who were opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 before the District Forum, detained the vehicle far nearly 43 days and the vehicle was taken far trial, it was .observed that the major defect of vehicle of pulling right side was not rectified and was confirmed by opposite party No. 3. 3. After hearing the parties in great detail, the District Consumer Forum directed the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, namely, the manufacturer, dealer and Hero Honda Service Centre jointly and severally to replace the Hero Honda Splendor with a new one, which is free .of defects, with fresh warranty period .of .one year from the date of replacement and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties, namely, the manufacturer, dealer and the Hero Honda Service Centre went up in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission, after hearing the parties and perusing all the documents and entire record, held that the District Forum rightly directed the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one, free of defects, with fresh warranty period of one year from the date of replacement: As the complainant suffered a lot, the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000. 10,000. There are no merits in the appeal. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum. Thus, the State Commission dismissed the appeal. 5. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission M/s. Hero Honda and others have filed this revision petition before us. Submissions of learned Counsel for the revision petitioner 6. Heard the arguments of Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner. He submitted that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. He further submitted that both the lower Fora have erred in treating the certificate dated 28.8.2002 produced by the complainant from one Mr. Ashok of Hero Honda Sleek Centre, Hyderabad, as the confirmation of the defect by petitioner No.3, which is Hero Honda Service Centre. He also submitted that the said Hero Honda Sleek Centre is not authorized by petitioner No land is not at all related in any manner whatsoever with the petitioner and the logo of petitioner No. 1 had falsely been used without any authorization thereto. He has also submitted that the complainant while taking delivery had recorded the pulling to the right side still slightly present (90% rectified). Despite that, he had filed a complaint before the District Forum to get unfair advantage. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice the decision of this Commission reported in Swaraj Mazda Ltd. u. P.K. Chakkappore, 2004 (2) ALT 23 (NC) (CPA) where in para 5 of the said decision, this Commission while elaborately dealing with the mandage of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, emphasized the need of appointment of a government or other agency for proper testing of the vehicle involved in the case so that the Fora adjudicating the dispute are guided by the opinion of the expert It is also pertinent to submit that no expert evidence was led by the complainant thereby failing to prove any manufacturing defect inherent in the motorcycle. He offered to deposit the cost of the vehicle and sought stay against the order of the District Forum. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that when a part or component could be replaced and defect could be rectified, replacement cannot be ordered as held in the case of Dr. Hema Vasantial Dakoria v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. & Ors., reported in II (2005) CPJ 102 (NC). Findings 9. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that when a part or component could be replaced and defect could be rectified, replacement cannot be ordered as held in the case of Dr. Hema Vasantial Dakoria v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. & Ors., reported in II (2005) CPJ 102 (NC). Findings 9. It is clear from the record that the vehicle suffered from inherent problems soon after delivery was taken by the complainant The records filed before us clearly indicate that this vehicle had starting problem in morning hours, headlight focus adjustment was required and there was mileage problem. Further, the Hero Honda job card warranty of M/s. Venkateshwara, Motors indicates the right side pulling problem, low mileage, gear out of order, and vehicle vibration at 55 kms. speed. On 7.4.2002 when the vehicle was brought to M/s. Venkateshwara Motors, 'the following problems were noticed viz, starting problem in morning hours, mileage problem and headlight focus adjustment. Subsequently, on 4.7.2002, following complaints were attended by M/s. Venkateshwara Motors- ' (1) right side pulling problem; (2) low mileage; , (3) gear adjustment problem; (4) vehicle vibration at 50 kms. speed. 10. On 10.7.2002, right side pulling problem, low mileage, gear adjustment and vibration at 50 kms. speed persisted and the vehicle was taken for repairs to M/s. Venkateshwara Motors, which the de air tried to rectify. The complainant persistently had to contract the dealer on phone for repairs of the vehicle. He has also filed the job card and the medical certificate issued by the Neurosurgeon of the Gandhi Hospital Secunderabad. On 8.7.2002, he wrote a letter to Mis. Venkateshwara Motors as well as the head office of the Hero Honda Motors mentioning about the manufacturing defects in great detail including the problem of law mileage and vibration at 55 kms. speed. On 11.7.2002, he, wrote another letter about the persistence of the problem of right side pulling and stated that the dealer did not even bother to re-check their work though it was given to them on 4.7.2002 and asked me to leave the vehicle for three more days saying that 'Service Engineers' are coming from Delhi. When he did not get relief, he sent an Advocate's notice to the manufacturer. 11. It is true that on 17.8.2002, the complainant Mr. When he did not get relief, he sent an Advocate's notice to the manufacturer. 11. It is true that on 17.8.2002, the complainant Mr. T. Nagender stated in his letter to the Hero Honda Service Centre as follows : "Today I checked my vehicle and found the major problem i.e., pulling to right side is still slightly present (Ninety/percent rectified)." But that is only the half truth. He has further stated as follows : ''As it requires some time whether all the problems as well as the above problem is rectified fully or not. I have been asked to take delivery to test the vehicle. I am, therefore, taking delivery of the vehicle AP 9 AM 3108 under protest and without prejudice to my claims and complaint made in my vehicle before. After testing the vehicle for a week I would report my satisfaction." (Emphasis added) 12. The Hero Honda Sleek Centre has given a certificate about the manufacturing defects of this vehicle, which according to the revision petitioner is not at authorised Service Centre of the manufacturer. Be that as it may be, the matter has been gone into great detail by the District Forum and it has given adequate opportunities to both the parties and marked a large number of documents as exhibits on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties: Even when the matter went to the State Commission, the problem in the vehicle persisted and accordingly the State Commission had to direct the manufacturer to rectify the defects in "the motorcycle. The State Commission had directed the complainant to deliver the vehicle to the opposite parties listing out all the defects and opposite party shall attend the defects diligently within a period of two weeks. Relevant extracts of the order of the State C.ommission are reproduced below : "This Commission directed the complainant on 3.8.2004 to deliver the vehicle to the opposite party listing out all the defects and the opposite party shall attend those defects diligently within a period of 2 weeks and the opposite party shall report compliance on 13.9.2004. But the opposite party did not present on 13.9.2004, 27.9.2004 and 1.11.2004. Therefore, the complainant was directed on 1.11.2004 to . collect the vehicle and report this Commission on 8.11.2004. A memo was filed by the complainant on 8.11.2004 stating that as per the direction of this Commission on 1.11.2004 the respondent! But the opposite party did not present on 13.9.2004, 27.9.2004 and 1.11.2004. Therefore, the complainant was directed on 1.11.2004 to . collect the vehicle and report this Commission on 8.11.2004. A memo was filed by the complainant on 8.11.2004 stating that as per the direction of this Commission on 1.11.2004 the respondent! complainant has received the subject vehicle AP 9 AM 3108 on the same day evening at 5.00 p.m. for testing and trial to check whether the defects complained were rectified or not. But to the utter dismay of the respondent complainant except for the small increase in the mileage i.e;, 53 to 58 kms. per litre as against the company claim of 75 kms. per litre the remaining defects especially the defective balance of the vehicle (right side pulling) is still not fully rectified and causing one side pains to the complainant/respondent herein. Accordingly, the vehicle is thus tested and produced before this Court for passing appropriate orders. Even though the vehicle was kept for 45 days within the opposite party the defects were not rectified. (Emphasis added) 13. Therefore, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the order passed by the District Forum does not require any interference. 14. So far as the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Dr. Hema Vasantial Dakoria v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. & Ors., (supra) is concerned, present case is distinguishable from the aforesaid case as in the current case, the manufacturing defects were noticed from day one and persisted even after the case went up to the level of the State Commission. Accordingly, this case does not come to the rescue of the revision petitioner. 15. The learned Senior Counsel also quoted the decision of this Commission reported in Swaraj Mazda Ltd. v. P.K Chakkappore (supra). In this case, this Commission held that the facts of the case of Swaraj Mazda Ltd. v. P. K Chakkappore do not fally with those in the present case. In Swaraj Mazda's case there was admitted position that the vehicle had met with an accident in June 1994 and since then it was stationary till the date of inspection. There has been problem in hassisresulting in possible bursting of tlres, replacement of which was offered by the appellant in 1993, which was declined by the complainant. 16. In Swaraj Mazda's case there was admitted position that the vehicle had met with an accident in June 1994 and since then it was stationary till the date of inspection. There has been problem in hassisresulting in possible bursting of tlres, replacement of which was offered by the appellant in 1993, which was declined by the complainant. 16. In this case, the Hero Honda Splendor motorbike has not met with an accident, secondly there was no agreement for replacement of chassis of this vehicle and• thirdly the manufacturing defects of the vehicle were attended by the dealer M/s. Venkateshwara Motors from time-to-time and the defects persisted even when the case traversed through the District Forum and the State Commission, which compelled the State Commission to direct. the revision petitioner to rectify the same but the defects could not be rectified. Hence, the decision of this Commission in Swaraj Mazda's case would not be of any use of the revision petitioner,. 17. We have gone through the orders of both the Fora below and the records submitted before us. We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Fora below. 18. In view of what has been stated above, this revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. R.P. dismissed.