Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. None appears for respondent No.2.

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 case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased Ford Ikon car bearing Registration No. OR-10E-0333 manufactured by OP No.1 and that vehicle was being serviced by OP No.2 the authorized Service Centre of OP No.1. Complainant alleged inter alia that in the month of July, 2013, the timing belt of the car got snapped and complainant sent the vehicle to OP No.2 for replacement of belt. After the belt was replaced, after few days of run of vehicle again the  head of the engine  of the vehicle cracked and as such the vehicle was again taken to OP No.2 to repair the same on payment of cost of Rs.1.4 lacs. Complainant alleged further that time to time the major repair has been done to the vehicle and the complainant has spent the money. Since the engine of the vehicle and other major parts of the vehicle got defective frequently, complainant issued notice to OP No.2 take repair efficiently.  OP No.2 instructed the complainant to keep in contact with OP No.1 for carrying on the repair work. Although complainant alleged has  got the repair work executed by OP No.2 but the defect in the engine and other parts continued. So finding no other way, complainant filed the case.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version stating that the case is not maintainable and the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and there is no cause of action to file the case against him. OP No.1 challenged that he is only the manufacturer and engaged OP No.2 as principal to principal basis. He submitted that since he is the manufacturer and has no direct contact with the complainant, there is no deficiency of service on their  part.

5.      OP No.2 filed written version stating that the learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and the vehicle has been serviced time to time by OP No.2. It is his plea that the vehicle is more than 10 years old and covered 230000 kms. The vehicle has been handed over to the complainant after necessary repair occurred. There is no any deficiency of service on their part.

6.      Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-

                              “xxx   xxx   xxx

Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP 2 is directed to replace the existing engine of the vehicle with a new Ford engine and to charge the differential amount of the expenses already incurred under repair of engine head and to make good of the fuel pump and AC of the car to the satisfaction of the complainant. The OP 2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards costs to the complainant. The above directions are to be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. No orders against OP No.1.”

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant  challenged the finding of the learned District Forum on the ground that the engine even if replaced but  there lies other defects in the engine. Learned District Forum has not taken all these facts in to consideration. So, he submitted that OP No.1 must be also responsible for the damage to the vehicle and the harassment meted out to the complainant. Both OP Nos. 1 and 2 be made liable to replace the engine and not to charge any expenses occurred for that. He also submitted that OP Nos. 1 and 2 both should be directed jointly to pay compensation and cost. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order and allow the compensation in full payable by both OPs. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Commission about statement of driver and other persons.

8.      Learned counsel for OP No.1/respondent No.1 submitted that OP No.1 being the manufacturer, no order has been passed against them, as such he has nothing to say in this matter.

9.      Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    It is admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has got the vehicle repaired at the workshop of OP No.2 who is admittedly the authorized dealer of OP No.1.

11.    Complainant is required to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Complainant has produced the lot of cash memos and time to time repairing job cards. After going through the documents this Commission is of the view that the vehicle of course has given trouble within the warranty period and it was repaired time to time  by OP No.2 the authorized dealer of OP No.1. It is not uncommon that manufacturer always takes the plea that the dealing with the dealer is on principal to principal basis. But the letters issued by mail from OP No.1 to the complainant shows that they have asked the complainant to inform OP No.2 who is the authorized dealer of OP No.1 to remove all the defects of the vehicle of the complainant. Therefore, series of letters as discussed proved that the OP No.1 being the manufacturer has owned responsibility and directed OP No.2 to remove the defect. When the vehicle is costly and the parts have been changed from time to time on payment of the charges by the complainant, the defect in the engine cannot be said to have been removed. Therefore, this Commission is of the view not only OP No.2 is liable but also OP No.1 is also liable in this case because of the fact that OP No.2 is authorized dealer of OP No.1 who has directed complainant to get defect removed by OP No.2. So question of principal to principal basis does not arise in this case.

12.    In view of the above, this Commission is of the view that the complainant has successfully proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP No. 1 and OP No.2. Not only OP No.2 is alone liable but also OP Nos.1 and 2 are both jointly liable for deficiency of service. This aspect has not been gone through by the learned District Forum and only fixed up responsibility with OP No.2. There is no reason why OP No.1 was left out by the learned District Forum. Hence, while affirming the impugned order of the learned District Forum with respect to the role of OP No.2, the impugned order is modified by also directing OP Nos.1 and 2 both to replace the engine of the vehicle with a new Ford engine and that should be without payment of charges and also make the vehicle in all respect fit to run on the road. Moreover, OP Nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay the compensation and cost as directed by learned District Forum. All the above directions be complied within 45 days from today. Thus, the impugned order is modified accordingly.

13.    The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

      The copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.