ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): These three appeals arise out of the order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 73 of 2007. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 6,82,000/- to the complainant. It was further directed that after payment of the said amount by the opposite parties to the complainant, the complainant shall hand over the keys and documents of the vehicle to the opposite parties. Assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum, the opposite party No. 2 – M/s Sardari Lal Oberai Motors Pvt. Ltd. has filed First Appeal No. 150 of 2009 and whereas the opposite party No. 1 – M/s General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. has filed First Appeal No. 153 of 2009. However, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 171 of 2009 for enhancement. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 09.05.2005, the complainant had purchased a Chevrolet Tavera B2 vehicle bearing chassis No. MA6AB68765H014524 and engine No. 3CE14057, manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 – M/s General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., from the opposite party No. 2 – M/s Sardari Lal Oberai Motors Pvt. Ltd. for sum of Rs. 6,72,000/-. It is alleged that the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood, as he is engaged in the business of tour and travels. The complainant had taken a loan from ICICI Bank for purchase of the vehicle. It is further alleged that the manufacturing defect in the vehicle surfaced up. Till 29.08.2005, the vehicle had run 13000 kms. and sound started coming from the front right wheel of the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2, but the problem was not cured. The same problem was again reported on 20.10.2005. On 16.02.2006, the vehicle was again taken to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 and welding was done. and sound started coming from the front right wheel of the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2, but the problem was not cured. The same problem was again reported on 20.10.2005. On 16.02.2006, the vehicle was again taken to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 and welding was done. The repair work carried out in the vehicle was mentioned in the job cards issued by the opposite party No. 2 and the same has been mentioned in the impugned order. On 20.01.2007, the complainant asked for replacement of the chassis of the vehicle, for which the opposite parties agreed. However, on inspection, the complainant found that the new chassis fixed in the vehicle was not as per the body structure of the vehicle. Hence, the complainant refused to take the delivery of the vehicle and the vehicle is standing at the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 since 26.06.2007. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and hence the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction in the matter; that as and when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2, necessary repair work was done and the parts were replaced; that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle; that the chassis of the vehicle has been replaced to the full satisfaction of the complainant free of charges and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 24.07.2009 in the above terms. Against the said order, all the parties to the consumer complaint have filed the present appeals, as stated above. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 24.07.2009 in the above terms. Against the said order, all the parties to the consumer complaint have filed the present appeals, as stated above. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. So far as the argument that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and, as such, the consumer complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum is concerned, the complainant has specifically pleaded in para 2 of the consumer complaint that he is an unemployed literate person and for earning his livelihood, he had taken the loan from ICICI Bank for purchase of the subject vehicle and in para 4 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has also alleged that the business of tour and travels done by him is the only source of his livelihood. The District Forum has dealt with this aspect of the matter and has rightly held that the consumer complaint was maintainable before the Consumer Forum. We do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the District Forum and we also endorse the same. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 – M/s Sardari Lal Oberai Motors Pvt. Ltd. on several occasions, which goes to show that there has been consistent problem/trouble in perfect running of the vehicle and that the vehicle was not providing trouble free performance. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the chassis of the subject vehicle had been changed by the opposite parties and that the vehicle is lying in the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 since 26.06.2007. 8. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have changed the chassis of the subject vehicle with a chassis of new model, which has disfigured the body of the vehicle and, as such, he refused to take the delivery of the vehicle. In support of his case, the complainant has filed the inspection report dated 19.07.2008 of Sh. Anup Singh Negi, Surveyor & Loss Assessor before the District Forum (Paper Nos. 63 to 64 on the record of First Appeal No. 171 of 2009). In the said report, Sh. In support of his case, the complainant has filed the inspection report dated 19.07.2008 of Sh. Anup Singh Negi, Surveyor & Loss Assessor before the District Forum (Paper Nos. 63 to 64 on the record of First Appeal No. 171 of 2009). In the said report, Sh. Anup Singh Negi has mentioned that he has physically checked the vehicle in the compound of the opposite party No. 2 and has further stated that at the time of inspection, the vehicle was parked in the compound of the opposite party No. 2 and he found that the body of the vehicle is not fixed properly on the chassis frame since the new model chassis frame has been replaced by the dealer/repairer in place of old model frame. He has also stated that the complete body of the vehicle has got disbalanced and that the body has not been fitted technically and properly for running the vehicle on road. Sh. Anup Singh Negi has also filed his affidavit in support of his report (Paper No. 65). 9. Against the above report and affidavit, the opposite party No. 2 has filed the affidavit of Sh. B.B. Chauhan, General Manager (Service), M/s Sardari Lal Oberai Motors Pvt. Ltd. before the District Forum (Paper Nos. 33 to 37 on the record of First Appeal No. 150 of 2009). In the said affidavit, Sh. B.B. Chauhan has stated that Sh. Anup Singh Negi is not an expert in Automobile field and hence his report can not be relied upon. He has further stated that he did not inspect the vehicle on 19.07.2008, as the vehicle was parked on the top floor of the premises, which always remained locked. 10. Thus, there is an inspection report of Sh. Anup Singh Negi with regard to the inspection of the vehicle by him, duly supported by an affidavit, showing that the complete body of the vehicle has got disbalanced and that the body has not been fitted technically and properly for running the vehicle on road and against the same, there is an affidavit of Sh. B.B. Chauhan, stating therein that Sh. Anup Singh Negi did not inspect the vehicle and that since he is not an expert in Automobile field and hence his report can not be relied upon. B.B. Chauhan, stating therein that Sh. Anup Singh Negi did not inspect the vehicle and that since he is not an expert in Automobile field and hence his report can not be relied upon. However, one thing is clear and regarding which, there is also no dispute between the parties, which is that the vehicle was frequently brought to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 regarding noise in the vehicle and that the chassis of the vehicle had been replaced by the opposite parties. There is a letter dated 07.07.2006 (Paper No. 38) of General Motors India, wherein it has been mentioned that High floor chassis would be no longer serviceable from PDC. Hence, the current low floor chassis can be used with high floor body shell with additional low floor chassis kit. But in the instant case, the chassis was not properly replaced and the body of the vehicle was not properly fixed and, as such, the vehicle got disfigured and disbalanced. It is important to mention here that the chassis is the main part of the vehicle and the body of the vehicle is constructed on the basis of the chassis. If the chassis of a vehicle is changed and the changed new chassis does not support/match the constructed body of the vehicle, the whole vehicle gets disfigured/ disbalanced and can not be smoothly plied on the road. The annexure attached with the above letter (Paper No. 39) also shows that on fixing the low floor chassis kit, the whole shape and the body of the vehicle will be changed. Thus, there can not be said any wrong on the part of the complainant by not taking the delivery of the vehicle after replacement of the chassis, since the changed chassis had changed the body of the vehicle and the shape of the vehicle got disfigured. 11. Learned counsel for M/s General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. has cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), wherein it was held that merely because the vehicle was repeatedly brought to the service station for repairs, is no ground to hold that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), wherein it was held that merely because the vehicle was repeatedly brought to the service station for repairs, is no ground to hold that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. In the instant case, as is stated above, there is admitted case of the parties that the chassis of the vehicle had been changed and the evidence and material on record shows that the newly fitted chassis had changed the shape and body of the vehicle and the vehicle got disbalanced. Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Tata Motors Limited and others Vs. Sunil Kumar and another; II (2012) CPJ 307 (NC). In the said decision, it was held that in the absence of expert opinion, the State Commission could not have concluded it a case of manufacturing defect. In the present case, as is stated above, there is inspection report of Sh. Anup Singh Negi, duly supported with an affidavit. However, the dealer has filed the affidavit of Sh. B.B. Chauhan, controverting the report of Sh. Anup Singh Negi, but the facts and circumstances of the case speak themselves and prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the newly fitted chassis in the vehicle has changed the body and shape of the vehicle. Learned counsel further cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another; I (2006) CPJ 3 (SC). In the reported case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that since necessary repairs and replacement of components was carried out free of charges during warranty period and hence the High Court was not justified in directing for replacement of the vehicle. In the case in hand, the part which was changed was chassis, which is the most important part/component of the vehicle, on which the body of the vehicle is constructed. Hence, in the present case, the change of the chassis with a new one, which has already been done by the opposite parties, will not serve the ends of justice. Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission given in the case of Scooter India Ltd. and another Vs. Momna Gauri and another; II (2012) CPJ 301 (NC). Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission given in the case of Scooter India Ltd. and another Vs. Momna Gauri and another; II (2012) CPJ 301 (NC). In the said case, the chassis of brand new three wheeler motor vehicle broke down within a short period. It was held that the replacement of defect chassis by new one is the legally available relief to respondent. In the present case, as is stated above, the direction regarding change/ replacement of chassis with a new one, will not serve the purpose. 12. Learned counsel for M/s Sardari Lal Oberai Motors Pvt. Ltd. has cited a decision dated 14.09.2012 of this Commission rendered in First Appeal No. 43 of 2011; Commercial Motors Vs. Smt. Jeevanti Devi and another. In the said case, it was duly proved on record that the defect in the vehicle was duly cured/rectified by the opposite party and necessary repair was carried out and the vehicle was put in order and the complainant had voluntarily executed the satisfaction note that the vehicle has jointly been test driven after the repairs and that she does not have any complaints and is fully satisfied. In the present case, as is stated above, the newly fitted chassis has completely changed the body and shape of the vehicle and on account of which, the vehicle has got disbalanced. Learned counsel also cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of TELCO Vs. Hardip Singh and another; [2011] 2 CPR (NC) 100, wherein it was held that the complainant has failed to show that the problem in the vehicle was inherent in nature because of which the vehicle could not run. It was further held that the onus to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle was on the complainant, which he failed to discharge by leading any evidence. In the instant case, as is stated above, it is an admitted case of the parties that the chassis of the vehicle has been changed. The opposite parties have also not disputed the fact that there was defect in the chassis of the vehicle and the same could not be cured inspite of repeated repairs. The complainant has got the vehicle inspected through Sh. The opposite parties have also not disputed the fact that there was defect in the chassis of the vehicle and the same could not be cured inspite of repeated repairs. The complainant has got the vehicle inspected through Sh. Anup Singh Negi, who in his inspection report, has clearly stated that the body of the vehicle is not fixed properly on the chassis frame since the new model chassis frame has been replaced by the dealer in place of old model frame. He has also mentioned in his report that the vehicle has got disbalanced. Thus, the complainant has fully discharged his burden by adducing cogent and reliable evidence in support of his case. Learned counsel further cited another decision dated 16.03.2009 of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in First Appeal No. 276 of 2004; The Manager, Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Bachchi Ram Dangwal and another. In the said case, it was held that there was no sufficient evidence on record to show that there was manufacturing defect in the truck supplied to the complainant. In the case in hand, the parties have not disputed the fact that the chassis of the vehicle was defective and the same was replaced by a new chassis. As is already stated above, the chassis is the main part of the vehicle and the body of the vehicle is constructed on the basis of the chassis. The newly installed chassis has changed the shape of the vehicle and the vehicle has got disbalanced and the said fact has duly been proved by the complainant. Learned counsel also cited one more decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad and others; III (2010) CPJ 130 (NC), wherein it was held that the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by expert opinion that the vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defect and that unless the onus is satisfactorily discharged by the complainant, the liability of the manufacturer is limited to removal of defect and / or replacement of parts. In the present case, the complainant has satisfactorily discharged his onus by adducing cogent and reliable evidence in support of his case that the newly installed chassis in the vehicle has changed the shape of the vehicle and that the vehicle has got disbalanced. In the present case, the complainant has satisfactorily discharged his onus by adducing cogent and reliable evidence in support of his case that the newly installed chassis in the vehicle has changed the shape of the vehicle and that the vehicle has got disbalanced. The change of the chassis with a new one, which has already been done by the opposite parties, will not meet the ends of justice, as the same would not serve any purpose. 13. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly held that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the price of the vehicle. However, the District Forum failed to take into consideration the fact that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 09.05.2005 and the same was left by him at the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 on 26.06.2007 and since the said date, the vehicle is lying in the workshop. In his inspection report dated 19.07.2008, Sh. Anup Singh Negi, has mentioned the meter reading of the vehicle as 62200 kms. The complainant has used the vehicle for a period of more than two years and, thus, there has to be some depreciation in the cost of the vehicle, on account of the use of the same by the complainant. In our view, depreciation @15% for the use of the vehicle by the complainant for this period of two years, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, would be justified. This way sum of Rs. 1,00,800/- is to be deducted on account of depreciation from the amount of Rs. 6,72,000/-, the price of the vehicle. Since the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is duly proved and hence the complainant is entitled to interest @7% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 5,71,200/- (Rs. 6,72,000/- minus Rs. 1,00,800/-) from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. Since the complainant has been awarded interest, there is no question of separate compensation for mental agony and hence the award of Rs. 10,000/- passed by the District Forum towards mental agony, is liable to be set aside. 5,71,200/- (Rs. 6,72,000/- minus Rs. 1,00,800/-) from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. Since the complainant has been awarded interest, there is no question of separate compensation for mental agony and hence the award of Rs. 10,000/- passed by the District Forum towards mental agony, is liable to be set aside. The direction passed by the District Forum that after payment of the amount by the opposite parties to the complainant, the complainant shall hand over the keys and documents of the vehicle to the opposite parties, is fully justified and need not disturbed. Thus, all the appeals are to be disposed of in the above terms and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is to be modified accordingly. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, all the three appeals are disposed of. Order impugned dated 24.07.2009 of the District Forum is modified and the opposite parties, i.e., M/s General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sardari Lal Oberai Motors Pvt. Ltd. are directed to pay to the complainant – Sh. Dinesh Kathait, a sum of Rs. 5,71,200/- together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. The direction passed by the District Forum that after payment of the amount by the opposite parties to the complainant, the complainant shall hand over the keys and documents of the vehicle to the opposite parties, is confirmed. No order as to costs. 15. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal Nos. 153 of 2009 and 171 of 2009.