E.J. Bellie, President

1. The appeal is filed by the opposite party against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum.

2. The complainant purchased a Tata 608 Model T.C. type four wheeler from the opposite party on 18.12.1993 with warranty period of 3 years. During the warranty period on 9.4.1994 the Diesel Pump in the vehicle developed a crack. The opposite party was to attend to it in 2 or 3 days time, but it had detained the vehicle for about 18 long days for service. According to the complainant, because of this the complainant has been put to heavy loss of Rs. 18,940/-. To the demand made the opposite party has not responded. On these allegations the complaint was filed.

3. The opposite party contended that the defective part was a bought out item from M/s. Mico Company, Madras and that Company took long time and as soon as it reached the opposite party it was fixed to the vehicle and the vehicle was delivered on 29.4.1994 to the complainant who took it back without any protest or demur. Thus there was no delay on their part and as such there was no deficiency in service committed by them. It was further contended that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and therefore the complaint is not maintainable.

4. The District Forum held that the complaint was maintainable and it further held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On these findings it ordered the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 6.500/- as demages within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which this amount will carry interest @ 18% p.a. from 7.9.1994 till date of payment.

5. It is now argued in the appeal that there was no latches on the part of the opposite party at all and therefore the District Forum was in error in holding that there was deficiency in service. It is submitted that on 9.4.1994 itself the local agent of Misco Company, Madras was intimated about the defective part and the said agent in turn under Ex. B2 letter dated 11.4.1994 addressed his Principals at Madras for replacement, and the opposite party themselves have written directly Ex. B1 letter dated 12.4.1994 to Mico Company at Madras and the new part was received on 29.4.1994 and on the very same day it was fitted in the vehicle and the vehicle was delivered. Therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. But the fact remains that from the date the vehicle was delivered to the opposite party a delay of 18 days had occurred before the replacement was made and the vehicle was re-delivered to the complainant. The opposite party themselves in the written version would state that the Mico Company had taken a long time to deliver the new part. Since the responsibility for replacement being with the opposite party, the opposite party should have seen to it that the replacement was done without much loss of time. It is not their case that the new part was not readily available with the Mico Company. But they would only say that the Mico Company was asked to send the new part but they had taken a long time. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite party should have taken effective, expeditious steps to get the replacement and it cannot simply say that since the delay has been caused by the Mico Company they cannot be said to be at fault. Thus considering we hold the view that the District Forum was correct in its conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. According to the District Forum a margin of 5 days time could be allowed and for the balance of 13 days the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation. We are however of the view that in the circumstances of the case a little larger margin can be given and that could be 8 days. As r

egards the rate of compensation of Rs. 500/- per day fixed by the District Forum, it has taken into consideration, the part time wages paid to the driver and the helper also. Therefore this rate can be retained. 6. It this view of the matter, we award a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. 500/- per day x 10 days). The appeal is accordingly ordered. There will be no order as to costs. Compensation granted.