Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The case  of the complainant, in nutshell  is that the complainant  purchased  vehicle bearing Regd.No. OR-06-F-7859 from OP No.1 with  extended warranty  of the said vehicle for a period of one year.  It is alleged inter-alia that during warranty period the vehicle gave defects  time and again and same  has been repaired  by the OP. It is alleged that in one occasion the vehicle was repaired on payment of cost of Rs.3763.00. Since, the vehicle has been repaired repeatedly, the complainant  got mental agony ad harassment. So, he filed the complaint.

4.            The OP filed written version stating that the problem in the vehicle was minor and every time they have attended repairing  the vehicle.  So, they have  no deficiency in service on their part.

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum  passed the following order:-

                       Xxxxxxxx      xxxxx               xxxxxxxxx

                    “ The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Ops without cost. Both the Ops are liable for deficiency of service and they are to pay compensation of Rs.40,000.00(Rupees Forty thousand) only joint and severally to the complainant. But in lieu of that they can replace the vehicle by providing a new of same model vehicle to the complainant by taking away the old and defective vehicle from him. This arrangement is to be complied within 3 months from the date of this order. Parties are to bear their own cost.”                             

6.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not  considering  the written version filed by the OP with proper perspectives. According to him the repairing  vehicle has been attended by the OP on the request of the complainant and in the meantime the vehicle has been released in favour of the complainant.  He also pointed out to the fact that the learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact  that any repairing cost  beyond the warranty period would be payable by the concerned owner of the vehicle.   Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.                       The main point for consideration in this case whether the complainant is entitled  to replace the vehicle or any cost thereof.

9.                         It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased  the vehicle from the Ops. It is also admitted fact that  vehicle became defective after the purchase and same has been attended to by the OP. It is for the complainant to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The job card shows that the vehicle has been attended from  time to time by the OP and the repairs    are very normal one. Not only this but also complainant has  given certificate with full satisfaction  to the repairing of vehicle at the bottom of the job card.

10.                  In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the Op having attended repairing  work of the complainant’s vehicle  there are lies no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.

                  Appeal stands allowed. No cost.

                   Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.