MB Shah, President - Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. Respondent No.1 purchased a vehicle ‘Minidoor Pickup’ manufactured by the Respondent No.2 - Bajaj Tempo Ltd. The said vehicle covered 950 kms at the time of delivery to the Complainant (Respondent No.1). The Complainant found a number of defects in the said vehicle from the very beginning. He tried to keep it roadworthy, but due to manufacturing defects, he could not do so. Hence, he filed complaint No. 70/2000 before the District Forum, Chhindwara. After considering the relevant facts, the District Forum by its order dated 17th Aug'01, directed the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 to refund the amount of Rs. 1,42,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-plus costs of Rs. 500/-.
2.	Against that order, the Petitioner-Dealer preferred Appeal No. 1445/2001 before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By judgment and order dated 22nd May'03, the appeal was dismissed.
3.	Against that order, the dealer has preferred this Revision Application. From the order passed by the State Commission, it is apparent that there were a number of defects in the vehicle from the very beginning. During the pendency of the complaint, a Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed who had examined the vehicle and found that half of the engine set had been changed. The vehicle had dents and lost its colour. The vehicle could only be started by pushing it and the engine got heated after a run of 15 to 20 kms. The photographs were also brought on record. Considering the aforesaid finding, it is apparent that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicles supplied to the Complainant.
4.	Therefore, by order dated 30.9.2003, the Commission had directed the Petitioner to deposit the entire amount.
5.	The Authorised Representative of the Petitioner has submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,42,000/- with 10% per annum has been paid to the Complainant. It is his contention that as there were manufacturing defects, the said amount is required to be paid by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.
6.	We accept the said contention. The primary liability to reimburse the amount in such case is that of Respondent No.2 the manufacturer.
7.	In this view of the matter, Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the said amount to the Petitioner (dealer) within a period of one month. We also clarify that if there is any mistake in calculation of the amount payable to the Complainant, it would be open to the Complainant to file an application before this Commission for that purpose.
8.	The Revision Application stands disposed accordingly.
Order accordingly.