Date of filing:-21/09/2016.

Date of filing:-15/01/2018.

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)

B A R G A R H

Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2016

Bipin Bhoi, son of late Mahadeb Bhoi, aged about 58(fifty eight) years, resident of Kapasira, Po. Kapasira, Ps. Ambabhona, Dist. Bargarh, Pin-768045.

..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.

• V e r s u s -

1. Jalan Automobile Pvt. Limited, At-N.H.6, Remed Chowk, Sambalpur-768005, Odisha, Po. Remed, Ps/Dist. Sambalpur, represented through its Manager.

2. The Branch Manager, TATA Motors Finance Ltd, Think Techno Campus Building 'A' 2^nd Floor Off Pokhram Road-2, Registered Office Nanavati Mahalaya 3^rd Floor, 18 Homi Modi Street, Mumbai(west)-400001

3. The Managing Director, Regional Sales Office, ABU, SRO, TATA Motors Ltd, Bhubaneswar (Odisha).

4. Bibhuti Pradhan, S/o not known, At. Saranda (Chakalifarm) Po. Godbhaga, Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh (Odisha)

..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri C. Panda, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri S.K.Samal, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri A.K.Sahoo, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.3(three):- Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.4(four):- Sri S.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.

(ex-parte)

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.15/01/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, Member(M):-

The Complainant has filed complaint against the Opposite Parties U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The brief fact of the complaint is presented hereunder:-

The complaint contends that the Opposite Party No.1(one) is a Farm dealing with Tata Motors Vehicle and used to sell vehicles to the customers. Opposite Party No.4(four) was working as an agent under Tata Motors Finance Ltd. The Petitioner purchased one new vehicle i.e. TATA ULTRA 912/45, WB, DS-3HDLB bearing Chassis No. MATH130SE8F16830, Engine No. 497TC92FUY822934 on Dt.31/08/2014 from Opposite Party No.1(one) by giving a down payment of Rs.1,81,008/-(Rupees one lakh eighty one thousand eight)only being financed by TATA MOTORS FINANCE Limited i.e. Opposite Party No.2(two) which Opposite Party No.4(four) was working as an agent at the relevant time. That the son of the Petitioner was delivered with the new vehicle and was taking all precautions and care when plying as per the guidelines provided. But within 4(four) months of purchasing the vehicle various mechanical defects crop up in parts like gear box, clause plate, break down, break shoe and wheel cylinder etc. That on Dt.12/10/2014 while the vehicle was on the way to Aska (Odisha) showed problem in clause plate, mobile filter, the back tyre burst on Dt. 27/12/2014 while on the High Way to Barhampur, problem occurred in back drum, break shoes and wheel cylinder on Dt. 21/02/2015 on N.H.6, Bargarh and on Dt.27/02/2015 and Dt. 25/05/2015 showed other mechanical problems in the vehicle while was on the way to Bhukta for which the Petitioner has to sustain financial loss.

Further the complaint contends that the Petitioner brought this problem to the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.1(one) in writing but the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not act upon in any manner to repair the vehicle and paid no heed to the Petitioner and ultimately on Dt. 25/05/2015 the Petitioner left the vehicle within the premises of Jalan Auto Mobiles, Sambalpur i.e. Opposite Party No.1(one). After that also when the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not repair the vehicle by replacing the defective parts of the vehicle, the Petitioner finding no way out spent much money for repairing the vehicle, even if the vehicle was within the warranty period for which the Petitioner had to suffer heavy financial loss and mental agony. The Petitioner sent legal notice on Dt. 03/09/2015 to the Opposite Parties to make good of the loss accurred to the Petitioner. More over till date also the vehicle is showing various mechanical problem on each day for which the Petitioner is spending money regularly. The Petitioner with a high hope had purchased Tata Motors but practically the mechanical parts of the vehicle are defective in nature and also came to know that the particular model of the vehicle which the Petitioner had purchased was having manufacturing defect for which Tata Motors have stopped its production which amounts to unfair trade practice.

Further the Complainant contends that, the Petitioner was taking utmost care and precautions like keeping the fuel tank minimum 30%(thirty percent) filled, filling good quality diesel, regular cleaning of diesel tank, weekly removal of water separator etc. to maintain the vehicle up to standard as per operator's manual. That the vehicle had covered 85000(eighty five thousand) kilometer within the warranty period of thirty six months and within this period Opposite Party No.1(one) had taken charges of repairing from the Petitioner. Thereafter also when the vehicle was plying the original tyre was burst, on demand when the Opposite Parties denied for its replacement the Petitioner purchased a new tyre by paying Rs.13,600/-(Rupees thirteen thousand six hundred)only, Rs.12,600/-(Rupees twelve thousand six hundred)only and also Rs.12,200/-(Rupees twelve thousand two hundred)only on different dates within the warranty period.

That the Opposite Party delivered a defective vehicle did not repair or replace the defective parts and taken repair charges within the warranty period of the vehicle which squarely comes under the purview of deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties as per Consumer Protection Act. For such acts of Opposite Parties the Petitioner had to suffer mental agony and monetary loss for which the Petitioner has sought for the redressal of the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to give him a new vehicle and the defective vehicle be taken back from him.

The Complainant in support of his contention relied upon the following documents:-

1. Representation made by the Complainant to TATA MOTORS.

2. Retail invoice issued by the TATA MOTORS.

3. Advocate notice Dt.03/09/2015.

4. Letter from the TATA MOTORS to the Petitioner for delivery of the Vehicle and bills.

5. Vehicle PDI delivery papers and check list.

6. Bills/Retail invoice issued by different Automobile shops.

7. FIR sent to Police Station, Ambabhona.

8. Copy of Prameya paper(odia) Dt.07/09/2017.

Being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared through their respective counsels and filed their versions.

The Opposite Party No.1(one) in his version contends that the Complainant had purchased one Tata Ultra 912/45, WB. BS-HDLC bearing Chassis No. MATH 130 SF 8 FI 6830 and Engine No. 497TC92 FUT 822934 on Dt. 31/08/2014 by giving a down payment of Rs.1,81,008/-(Rupees one lakh eighty one thousand eight)only which has been registered vide Regd No. OD-17-C-8448. That the Complainant at the reading of 7200(seven thousand two hundred) kilometer took his vehicle to the work shop of M/s Consotarium Automobile, Chhatrapur on Dt. 25/10/2014 with a complain of vehicle break down, problem in clause plate and break oil which were changed and paid by the customer. Again the Complainant on Dt. 13/02/2015 took his vehicle to the work shop of Laxmi Sale and Services Bargarh with the complain of brake problem at the kilometer reading 31493(thirty one thousand four hundred ninety three) and brake shoe and wheel cylinder were changed in warranty period. That the Complainant on Dt.02/03/2015 took his vehicle to the Laxmi Sale and Service, Bargarh with a complain of brake down and starting problem at the meter reading 32740 (thirty two thousand seven hundred forty) kilometer which has been repaired by the work shop within the warranty period. That the Complainant came to M/s Jalan Automible Ltd. (Opposite Party No.1(one)) on Dt.09/04/2015 for first service at kilometer reading 39500 (thirty nine thousand five hundred) kilometer for which spare part, engine oil, filter services were provided at the cost of Rs.2,718/-(Rupees two thousand seven hundred eighteen)only, labour charge was free. That the Complainant came to the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.23/07/2015 for second service at the kilometer reading 43357(forty three thousand three hundred fifty seven) kilometer with a complaint of poor pick up, fuel average level, over heating, three number of tyre burst, clutch noisy and the Opposite Party No.1(one) provided three numbers of tyres at the cost of Rs.38,250/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand two hundred fifty)only clutch plate, pressure plate and hub greasing done in warranty period at the cost of Rs.11,728/-(Rupees eleven thousand seven hundred twenty eight)only as such the Petitioner was provided with approximately Rs.53,500/-(Rupees fifty three thousand five hundred)only in free service that the Complainant took his vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.26/10/2015 at kilometer reading 43360(forty three thousand three hundred sixty), as such Opposite Party No1(One) did the work for Tata Motors Special Retro Fit Fat for which brake kit was given at the cost of Rs.25,810/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand eight hundred ten)only to the Complainant. That the Complainant brought the vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.21/03/2016 at kilometer reading 64989(sixty four thousand nine hundred eighty nine) for engine oil change and hub greasing and spare parts of Rs.17,532/-(Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred thirty two)only and for labour charge of Rs.1,926/-(Rupees one thousand nine hundred twenty six)only which is paid.

Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) in his version contends that the vehicle was misused by the owner and driver of the vehicle being driven improperly, filling impure fuel and due to road problem the tubeless tyre affected and burst. The Opposite Party No.1(one) categorically and abundantly denied the allegation of deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice against him because the vehicle had already been repaired by the Opposite Party No.1(one) on several occasions and the Complainant's case is vexatious one. The Opposite Party No.1(one) prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against him with cost.

The Opposite Party No.1(one) in support of his contention relied upon the following documents:-

1. Xerox copies of Job and Office copy (six sheets).

2. Xerox copies of Retail Invoice (seven sheets).

3. Xerox copies of service history (four sheets).

4. Xerox copy of satisfaction letter Dt.01/10/2015.

5. Xerox copy of satisfaction letter Dt.02/10/2015.

The Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version contends that Tata Motors Finance Ltd is a company duly incorporated under Sec 45-I A of the RBI Act 1934 as a Non Banking Finace Company having its registered office at Mumbai is a renowned Asset Finance Company across India. That as per the request of the Petitioner a loan of Rs.10,03,000/-(Rupees ten lakh three thousand)only vide contract No. 5001633122 was sanctioned in his favour to purchase the alleged TATA Ultra 912 Vehicle executing proper hypothecation agreement and as per the hypothecation agreement the Petitioner ought to repay the entire loan amount in 48(forty eight) monthly EMI starting from Dt.02/10/2014 and ending on Dt.02/09/2018 of which first EMI was of Rs.30,598/-(Rupees thirty thousand five hundred ninety eight)only and rest installments are Rs.30,560/-(Rupees thirty thousand five hundred sixty)only each. The version further reveals that all the allegation of the Complaint have been denied except those which are specifically admitted.

The version of the Opposite Party No.2(two) further contends that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the Complainant has suppressed the material facts in approaching the Forum. That the allegations of the complaint are vague, baseless and with malafide intention and the complaint filed by the Complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute. That the allegation of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service are not established against this Opposite Party. That the Complainant was a chronic defaulter in paying the loan installments and the detail as reflected in the repayment history clearly reveals that the Complainant has failed to repay the loan amount within stipulated time and also made part payment of the installment amount which resulted in delayed payment charges along with remaining balance towards the installments and in the process, the Petitioner violated the terms of agreement hence there can not be any complaint of deficiency of service against this Opposite Party. Further more the version of this Opposite Party fortified with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Bharti Knitting Company Vrs DHL World Wide Express Cowrier (1996) 4 SCC 704, where by it is held that when the Complainant signed the contract documents it is assumed that the Complainant fully conversant with the terms and conditions of agreement and he is bound by the terms of the contract which can't be violated later on.

Further the version of Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec 2(i) d of Consumer Protection Act so also this Opposite Party never rendered any such service fulfilling the ingredient of 2(i)(g) and 2(i)( r) of the Consumer Protection Act. The version further reveals that transaction between the parties should be governed under the Arbitration Act-1996 and Sec 5 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of any other Court to adjudicate the dispute. Further clause 23 of the loan cum hypothecation agreement clearly states that any dispute arising out of the agreement shall be settled by the Arbitration and that all the allegation of the complaint are against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and there is no allegation against this Opposite Party. In view of the submission this Opposite Party has prayed the Forum to dismiss the Complaint against the Opposite Party No.2(two).

The Opposite Party No.3(three) in his version contends that complaint has been filed against the managing director, Tata Motors, who is not involved in the day to day operation of the Company or in the sell and service of the vehicle. TATA Motors vehicle ltd is a juristic person and be replaced in place of Managing Director. That the TATA Motor Ltd is a Company duly incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act-1913 and manufacture high quality vehicles which pass through stringent quality and road trials before open to the market for their sell and the vehicles are marketed only after being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (in short “ARAI”). That the vehicle manufactured by Opposite Party No.3(three) are provided service through a large network of around 145(one hundred forty five) authorized dealers, 780 (seven hundred eighty) service centers which are being continuously enhanced time to time. That the customers are provided with an all India 24 X 7 toll free help line, in distress situation for carrying out necessary services/checkups/replacement as many be required and the vehicle owners are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty policy applicable for the vehicles. That the Opposite Party No.3(three) denies all the allegations of the complaint except those which are specifically admitted.

Further the Opposite Party No.3(three) in his version contends that the Complaint filed by the Complainant is an abuse of process of law, vague, baseless and made with malafide intention as the complainant has suppressed the material facts in this case. That the allegation of complaint is one of manufacturing defect in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under Sec 13(1) ( c) of the Consumer Protection Act and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence can't be entertainable and the complaint does not fall under the definition of “Consumer Dispute” as provided in the Consumer Protection Act and the Complainant is not a “Consumer” in the light of decision reported in 1995 (II) CPJ I SC by Hon'ble Supreme Court within the meaning of Sec 2(i)(d) of the Act as it is used for commercial purpose and in a short span of 18(eighteen) months the vehicle was covered around 65000(sixty five thousand) kilometer which is not normal personal usage of the vehicle. That the Complainant has not followed the operators guideline in servicing the vehicle and in regular check up in regular interval of time at authorized service center as per the service schedule provided by the Opposite Party No.3(three) in the written statement. Furthermore in every interval of 1000(one thousand) kilometer travel or prior to a long trip some maintenance work should be carried out as per schedule chart. That the Complainant has not produced any records to show that regular service of the vehicle had been done as per recommended service schedule. As per the service history of the vehicle the vehicle was brought for service on Dt.25/10/2014 after covering distance of 7020(seven thousand twenty) kilometer, on Dt. 13/02/2015 after covering distance of 31493(thirty one thousand four hundred ninety three) kilometer. On Dt.02/03/2015 Covering distance of 32740(thirty two thousand seven hundred forty) kilometer. On Dt. 09/04/2015, Dt. 23/07/2015, Dt.26/10/2015, Dt.12/12/2015 and lastly on Dt.21/03/2016 and necessary service were provided on those days which clearly show that the Complainant failed to maintainable the vehicle as per the recommended schedule and as per the warranty policy all the normal. Maintenance services and consumable items are to be carried out on paid basis hence the Complainant was not entitle for carrying out any job works. That the warranty offered on every vehicle manufactured by Opposite Party No.3(three) is subject to the terms and condition of the warranty as contained in the operators service book and that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant is a will established product in the market and it was delivered to the Complainant after his satisfaction in its performance.

Further the version contends that the Opposite Party No.3(three) is ISOTS/10949 Certified which is the international standard for quality system for all automotive companies. It means before despatch of the vehicles to the market in different stage all quality and fitment checks are done in the international standard and the authorized dealers also conduct pre predelivery inspect over (PDI) all new vehicles before dispatching to the market for sale. That the vehicle before being deliver to the petitioner checked at the workshop by Diagnostic Expert cum Trainer (DET) during pre and post repair to ensure quality workmanship, hence there can not be any Complaint regarding deficiency of service against the Opposite Party No.3(three) by the Complainant. That the Opposite Party No.3(three) in his version states that in absence of an expert report from a Recognized Laboratory as to manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the allegation of manufacturing defect can not be entertain by the Hon'ble Forum and liable to be dismissed. That the Complainant has not done regular service repair except some minor repair and has misused the vehicle by running more distance in a short span, hence prayer for replacement of the vehicle are maintainable and unsustainable and in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd Vrs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Another, JT 2006(4) SC 113 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the manufacturer can not be ordered to replace the car on refund its price merely because some defects appears which can be rectified or defect part can be replaced under warranty. In view there of the Complainant seeking replacement of a new vehicle or to make full payment of the vehicle is contrary to low and is untenable. That the relationship between the Opposite Parties is on Principal to Principal basis and Opposite Party No.3(three) can not be held responsible for any independent act/omission committed by other Opposite Parties which is supported by the decision reported in (1994) 1 SC cases 397.

That in view of the admission of the Complaint and so also as per hypothecation agreement unless the loan is repaid the financing company is the owner of the vehicle and the Complainant is only beneficiary, hence is debarred to file Complaint as per Provision of Law in the Consumer Protection Act. More so Opposite Party No.3(three) has not been served with any demand notice prior to filing of the Complaint which is requirement of law in Consumer Protection Act.

Opposite Party No.3(three) in his version categorically contends that in the instant case makes out no ground for relief under the provision of Sec 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the Complainant has failed in proving the manufacturing defect in the vehicle so also any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3(three) and the Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present Complaint as it involves question of fact as well as law, so also extensive evidence can only be appropriately done only by a Civil Court, therefore the Complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with cost, as being false, frivolous and vexatious Complaint. That the statement made in para 8(eight) of the Complaint that a legal notice was issued by the learned Advocate to petitioner on Dt.03/09/2015 which was withdrawn by the Complainant when he signed the satisfaction letter on Dt. 01/10/2015 declaring that he has no Complaint against the Opposite Party No.1(one).

The Opposite Party No.3(three) in his version states that the statements made in para 1(one) to 19(nineteen)of the complaint are categorically denied except those are matters of record.

The Opposite Party No.3(three) his version has presented his case in the following points:-

1. Complainant is not a Consumer under the hypothecation agreements made with the financer of the vehicle and also using the vehicle for commercial purpose.

2. The Complainant has not done the services and repair of the vehicle in due course of time as per service manual and mis use the vehicle in driving and maintaining it which is against the terms and condition of the operators manual as well as with purchase agreement.

3. The allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle is not substantiated by any expert report or recognized laboratory test by the Complainant.

4. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has provided with adequate service as and when required, when the vehicle has been brought to him for repair or service.

5. By virtue of satisfaction note filed by the Complainant the Complaint is withdrawn against the Opposite Party No.1(one).

6. The Complainant is devoid of any merit to attract the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in bringing the allegation of deficiency in service so also unfair trade practice against this Opposite Party.

So in this back drop of the case, the Opposite Party No.3(three) prays the Forum to dismiss the Complainant against the Opposite Party No.3(three) with appropriate cost.

The Opposite Party No.3(three) in support of his contention filed copies of documents in the form of Annexure as follows:-

1. Copy of the Service schedule chart (Annexure-A).

2. Copy of Service History of the vehicle (Annexure-B).

3. Copy of the warranty terms and conditions of the vehicle (Annexure-C).

4. Coy of satisfaction Note as received from OP No.1(one)(Annexure-D).

The Opposite Party No.4(four) in this complaint has been set ex-parte on Dt.18/07/2017.

Gone through the entire case record, pleadings of the Parties along with their memo of argument and citation, evidence and documents available in the case record, heard argument from the Parties, the issues crop up for decision of the Forum as follows:-

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs ?

2. Whether the allegation of manufacturing defect in the complaint is established through cogent evidence ?

3. Whether the Opposite Parties have violated the terms and condition of warranty of the vehicle in providing service to the Complainant ?

4. Whether the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant and so also unfair trade practice ?

5. Whether the complaint involves complicated question of fact and law and whether the Forum is competent to adjudicate the matter ?

6. What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

Answering Issue No.1(one):-

Admittedly the Complainant has purchased the alleged vehicle with down payment of Rs. 1,81,008/-(Rupees one lakh eighty one thousand eight)only from Opposite Party No.1(one) and rest cost of the vehicle is financed and paid by the Opposite Party No.2(two) which is a consideration money for the cost of the product i.e. the alleged vehicle, as per provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The allegation of Opposite Party No.3(three) is that under the hypothetication agreement between Complainant and the Financing Company i.e. Opposite Party No.2(two), the Complainant is a beneficiary one and the actual owner of the vehicle is the financing Company unless the loan amount is completely repaid by the Complainant. In this contention also the Complainant as per provision contend in Sec 2(i)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the beneficiary of the Complainant is also a consumer. Hence in this context and fact of the case as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, the another allegation of the Opposite Parties is that the alleged vehicle is being used by the Complainant as commercial purpose but the commercial transaction in the alleged vehicle is not proved in any manner with evidence. Hence in the circumstances, facts and law involved in the case suggest that the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties as per provision of law in Consumer Protection Act. The citation filed by the Complainant regarding this issue is applicable.

Answering Issue No.2(two):-

The Complainant in his entire complaint alleges that the vehicle sold to him by the Opposite Party No.1(one) was having inherent manufacturing defect, for which in the initial period of purchasing of the vehicle various problems found in various parts of the vehicle for which he had to suffer a lot. The Opposite Party No.3(three) filed one petition on Dt.09/11/2016 to direct the Complainant to submit a report of the appropriate laboratory after a thorough inspection of the alleged vehicle as to manufacturing defect in it. The Complainant filed his objection on Dt.03/01/2017 where in he has contended that he has no objection if the vehicle is sent to any recognized laboratory for test but the cost of the laboratory test be borne by the Opposite Parties. As per Sec 13(i)(c)(d) of Consumer Protection Act-1986 the onus lies with the party to prove the manufacturing defect who alleges the same. Here in the instance case the Complainant in his entire complaint alleges the vehicle to be having manufacturing defect, hence in the back drop of this discussion supported by a catena of judgments by Hob'ble National Commission and also Hon'ble Supreme Court, the onus lies with the Complainant to prove the allegation of manufacturing defects by sending the product to recognized laboratory with its own cost to obtain an expert report to suit his allegation. The case in hand reveals that the Complainant has not opted to send the alleged vehicle to any recognized laboratory for test of manufacturing defect. It is conclusively held that in absence of any expert opinion or laboratory test report, allegation of manufacturing defect in vehicle is not sustainable in the eye of law. No citation has been filed by the Complainant regarding this issue. Hence it is answered accordingly against the Complainant.

Answering Issue No.3(three):-

Admittedly as per service record and job card furnished by the Opposite Party No.1(one) clearly reveals that the Complainant as and when taken the vehicle to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1(one) for servicing and repairing within warranty period, the Opposite Party No.1(one) promptly has provided satisfactory service to the vehicle of the Complainant, as per terms and condition mentioned in the warranty card of the vehicle. Nevertheless the Complainant was punctual in attending the services provided under warranty period in the prescribed interval of distance covered by the vehicle, hence the service record of the alleged vehicle reveals that the Opposite Parties have not violated the terms and condition stipulated in the warranty card in providing service to the vehicle of the Complainant. The other citations filed by the Complainant are not applicable in this case.

Answering Issue No.4(four):-

Admittedly the complaint has not followed the provision of Sec 13(1) of Consumer Protection Act-1986, in sending the alleged vehicle to any recognized laboratory to obtain expert opinion regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle. So also in the discussion of earlier issues it reveals that the Complainant has been provided with appropriate and prompt service as and when required by him from Opposite Party No.1(one). That more particularly as per the satisfaction letter Dt.01/10/2015 and Dt. 02/10/2015 signed by the Petitioner and his son and filed by the Opposite Parties clearly reveals that the Complainant has no complaint against the Opposite Party No.1(one). Hence the very genuineness of the complaint failed with these documents. Furthermore, the Opposite Party No.2(two) is no way connected with the allegation of the complaint and also he has been made party for record purpose only and the Complainant has not any specife allegation against him. Opposite Party No.4(four) is an agent under the Opposite Party No.2(two) as per the allegation of the complaint, who is no way connected with the allegation of the Complainant. Hence in the back drop of the discussion it is crystal and clear that the Opposite Parties are not liable for deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant so also unfair trade practice.

Answering Issue No.5(five):-

On perusal of the entire case record, documents pleading of the parties and more particularly the issues raised by the Complainant with bunch of facts and documents which involves complicated question of facts as well as law and it necessarily requires deposition of evidences and trial. In the summary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum where complicated question of fact and law are involved, the Forum lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate.

Answering Issue No.6(six):-

In the circumstances fact and law involved in this case and in the back drop of discussion and interpretations made earlier conclusion drawn up and the relief claim by the Complainant in the complaint is having no merit.

• O R D E R -

Delving deep into the matter and upon insight perusal of evidence and documents and law involved in the case the Forum unanimously found that the complaint is devoid of any merit, hence is dismissed against the Opposite Parties the Complainant is at liberty to go to the appropriate Court of law for the redressal of its claim.

Complaint disposed of accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

                    M e m b e r (M).

                                 I agree,                                 I agree, 

(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)             ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                    P r e s i d e n t.                                  M e m b e r (W)