Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one Autorickshaw from the O.Ps which had developed some defects as regards to starting trouble a few days after the purchase.  The Autorickshaw was given for repair but according to the complainant, the defects still persists.  The copies of the documents goes to show that infact the complainant had written to the O.Ps about the persisting defect even if the mobil kits were changed thrice and the self set-up box being replaced.  The legal notice as sent by the complainant to the O.Ps also reflects about the defects in the Autorickshaw of the complainant.  In reply to the legal notice of the complainant, the O.Ps had admitted to have sold the Autorickshaw having warranty, to the complainant but they have mentioned that the complainant had used the Autorickshaw for almost four years and after making it run for 83310 Kms has raised issues with regard to the said vehicle.  They have also mentioned in their reply to the legal notice of the complainant that they are ready to have checked the vehicle of the complainant by an expert at their authorised service centre and to detect the defects if therein which can be rectified there also.  The complainant has mentioned in his complaint petition that he had purchased the Autorickshaw in order to earn his livelihood and had sustained huge loss due to defects in that Autorickshaw.  According to him, there was abrupt starting trouble and high emission of smoke etc in the said vehicle.  His letter to the O.Ps goes to show thrice the mobil kit was changed apart from other repairs.  The complainant alleges that his Autorickshaw is a defective one which has some inherent manufacturing defect.  In this context, the O.P no.1 has relied upon a catena of decisions to counter this allegation which are as follows:

The O.P. No.1 relied upon a decision in the case of M/s. Tractor Dealer Farm Equipment and Machinery Company Vrs. Ghanshyam Maurya & Ors. of Hon’ble National C.D.R. Commission reported in 2016(4) CPR 412(NC) wherein it is held by the Honb’le National Commission that, it was necessary for complainant to get tractor examined from an expert and then file affidavit alongwith opinion of expert to prove defects alleged by him- That having not been done, complainant failed to discharge onus placed upon him.  He has also filed another decision in the case of Mr. Anup K.Thakur,Presiding Member Vrs. Devine Motors and Anr. of National C.D.R.Commission reported in III(2017) CPJ 599(NC) wherein it is held that when manufacturing defect is alleged onus of proof has to be on complainant-affidavits are no substitute for expert opinion.  O.P No.1 has alsorelied upon the decision of N.C.D.R.C in the case of  Himanshu Maheswari Vrs. Director,Grand Nissan and Anr. reported in 2018(2) CPR 675(NC) wherein it is held that manufacturing defect must be proved by some evidence.  He has also relied upon another decision of N.C.D.R.C in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Tirath Singh Oberoi reported in 2017 NCJ 204(NC) wherein it is held that manufacturing defects cannot be determined on the basis of facts and circumstances of case or on the suggestion of surveyor in his report- An expert report is mandatory.  Be that as it may, admittedly there was defect in the vehicle for which the complainant was made to run repeatedly for rectifying the same and still the O.Ps could not rectify the same.  Thus, it cannot be said here that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.  When there was no recourse to the grievances of the complainant even after sending the legal notice, he had to knock the door of this Commission having no other way out.  Thus, the case of the complainant is felt to be undoubtedly maintainable.  Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.3.

The complainant is thus entitled to some reasonable reliefs as claimed.  Since because there is no expert opinion pas regards to the complaint of manufacturing defect, the complainant is not entitled to get replacement of his Autorickshaw or the consideration amount as claimed, but is only entitled to relief to a reasonable extent.

                                                                ORDER

              The case is decreed on contest against the O.P No.1 & 3 and exparte against O.P No.2.  The O.Ps are being found jointly and severally liable, they are directed to repair the defects as pointed out in the Autorickshaw of the complainant within a month of receiving this order and to compensate the complainant for his mental harassment and agony to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and also to pay him the cost of litigation incurred by him to the tune of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 30^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak,

                                                                                                             President

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                Member