Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The unfolded story of the case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased one TATA SUMO (VICTA) vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-06-C-1141 on 3.9.2004 against payment of Rs.5,68,000/-. It is alleged inter alia that after running of vehicle for 5000 kms during first service, the vehicle started trouble.  Being noticed by OP No.1, OP Nos. 2 and 3 assured that the vehicle would be all right but the defect could not be removed. He also approached OP No.1 several times but the defect was not removed. Therefore, complaint was filed.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version stating that the case is  not maintainable. This OP admitted that the vehicle has been purchased from him. It is also admitted that on 12.2.2005 the complainant brought a complaint with regard to low pick up of the vehicle and the defect was removed by providing EGR Valve during warranty period. It is also stated that on 9.4.2005 the complainant again complained, then catholic Converter was replaced. Thereafter, the vehicle was fund to have no defect. So there was no any deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.

5.      OP Nos. 2 and 3 filed joint written version denying all the allegations made against them. OP Nos. 2 and 3 further stated that the matter is barred by limitation.

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

                             “xxx  xxx  xxx

            Hence, we allow the case as above and direct the opposite parties to rectify the defect in the vehicle by replacing the defective parts in the said vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The opp.parties are also directed to extend the warranty of the said vehicle for further period of one year from the date of delivery of the vehicle. The opp.parties are also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant within the above period. The case is disposed of accordingly.”

   7.   Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version filed by the OPs with proper perspective. According to them the defect whatever was removed and there is no manufacturing defect. No expert opinion has been received but the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order without analyzing the materials available on record. According to him the learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact that the complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion towards defect remained with the vehicle after the warranty period. Therefore, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      Complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

10.    It is admitted fact that the vehicle has been purchased and first service has been given by the OPs to the complainant. It is also admitted fact that some parts of the vehicle have already been replaced.  When the OP has attended to remove the defect, it is for the complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Not a single document is filed to show that any other part is yet to be removed. Learned District Forum has lost sight of the fact that the complainant has to prove  deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in  attending the vehicle. It appears that the learned District Forum has not analyzed the materials on record properly. Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

11.    The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.