3.         OP NO.1, in its reply, did not dispute the factual matrix of the case regarding purchase of the  car, in question, by the complainant, from it. It was denied that immediately after its purchase, the car started giving   problem of leakage of diesel. It was also denied that the hose pipe of the car was temporarily fixed. It was further stated that the complainant approached OP NO.1 for the first time on 5.5.2009 for first free service, and on 4.7.2009 for second free service, but never reported the aforesaid problem, in the car. It was further stated that the brake pads were damaged due to rough and extensive use of the vehicle, which had run a distance of 30400 KMs and the same were replaced free of cost under the terms of warranty. It was further stated that the fuel tank was damaged due to external impact due to accident by the complainant. It was denied that the vehicle was damaged by the officials of OP NO.1. It was further stated that the complainant had   taken delivery of the vehicle by issuing satisfactory note. It was denied that OP NO.1 was deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 

4.         In separate reply, filed by OP NO.2, it took up almost similar pleas, as were taken up by OP NO.1, in its written statement. It also denied the allegations, contained in the complaint.

5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

9.          The Counsel for appellant, submitted that in short span, after purchase of the car, it started giving problems. He further submitted that all of a  sudden there was leakage of diesel as the hosepipe of the car had broken. He further submitted that the OPs, assured the complainant, regarding  the replacement of the same, but  they did not do so, on the ground, that the spare part was not available. He further submitted that the hosepipe which was temporarily fixed by respondent No.1 again broke in September,2009, as a result whereof, the brakes of the car stopped working. He further submitted that, due to the  failure of brakes, the complainant had a narrow escape from the accident. He further submitted that while repairing the car, the officials of OP No.1 caused sever damage to the vehicle and then again the hosepipe broke. He further submitted that instead of replacing the same, it was temporarily fixed. He further submitted that all the defects were brought to the notice of the supervisor and workers of the workshop, when the car was taken to the premises of OP No.1. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that there was no manufacturing defect, in the car. He further submitted that the District Forum was also wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 

10.       On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/OPs, submitted that whenever the car was brought to the workshop of OP NO.1, for service or otherwise, whatever defects were found therein, were rectified. He further submitted that the defects mentioned, in the complaint, were never brought to the notice of the OPs, at any point of time, when the car was brought to the workshop. He further submitted that, in fact, the car met with an accident at the hands of the complainant, as a result whereof, fuel tank was damaged and started leaking. He further submitted that repair of the fuel tank, which was damaged, in the accident, on account of negligence of the complainant, did not fall within the terms and conditions of the warranty, and could not be rectified, free of cost. He further submitted that even there was report of the Head, Mechanical Engg. Department, PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, which clearly proved, that it was only on account of accident that there was leakage in the fuel tank. It was further submitted that the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum was right, in dismissing the complaint. 

11.        After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the   considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant purchased the car, in question, on 24.4.2009 from OP No.1. It is evident from job card OP1/1 that for the first time after the purchase of car, it was taken to the workshop of OP No.1 on 5.5.2009, when it had already covered 1342 Kms. for first free service. The service was done and the customer signed the document certifying that the work had been done to his satisfaction and he had taken delivery of the car. No defect, as mentioned in the complaint, was pointed out at the time of first service, as is evident from job card OP1/1. Separate satisfaction note was issued by the customer on 5.5.2009 which  is OP1/2. It is further evident from OP 1/3 that for  the second time, the car was taken to the workshop of OP NO.1 on 4.7.2009, when it had already covered 7500 kms. It was the second free service. After the service was done, a satisfaction note was recorded by the customer, on this document itself, that the work had been done to his satisfaction and delivery had been taken. There is nothing, in this document, that the hosepipe got broken and there was leakage in the fuel tank. Had such a defect been existing, it must have been pointed out by the complainant to the supervisor of the workshop, and the said defect must have been noted down in OP1/3 job card. OP1/4 is another job card, which shows that the car was taken to the workshop of OP No.1 on 3.3.2010, when it had already covered 28544 kms. At that time, the car was within warranty period. After doing service and rectifying the defects, whichever were pointed out, the customer recorded a certificate that the work had been done to his satisfaction and he had taken the delivery of the vehicle. In this document also, no defect of breakage of hosepipe and leakage of fuel tank, was brought to the notice of the supervisor. Had  such a defect been pointed out, the same would have been recorded in the job card. There is an unsigned sheet annexure C-7 which does not mention the date on which the car was taken to the workshop. On this document, complaint with regard to diesel tank leakage, roof light not working, autocap not working and both indicators not working, is recorded. C-3 is another job card dated 11.9.2009 when the car was taken to the workshop of OP NO.1. The complaint recorded therein was with regard to brakes insufficiently working and, thus, the brake pads were replaced. It was only for the first time that on 11.9.2009 when the problem with regard to brakes was reported and that too after covering the distance of 30,000 kms by the vehicle.   The brakes pads were replaced. No cost was charged from the complainant. From the aforesaid job cards, it was, thus, proved that, at no point of time, the complainant complained that on account of breaking of hosepipe, there was leakage in the fuel tank. As stated above, had such a defect been reported  by the complainant to the officials of OP No.1, the same would have been recorded in the job cards. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant brought such defect to the notice of OP No.1, but they did not record the same, then he could immediately send an email or letter to OP NO.1, that though such defects were there, and he brought the same  to the notice of the supervisor of the workshop, but he did not record the same on the job card. The aforesaid documentary evidence, belies the version, set up by the complainant  in the complaint.  The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the version set up by the complainant  that there was manufacturing defect in the car was not proved.

12.          Not only this, with a view to find out,  as to whether,  there was any manufacturing defect, in the car, in question, the Head, Mechanical Engg. Department, PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh was asked to inspect the same. A committee consisting of Dr.V.P.Singh, Head, Mechanical Engg Deptt, Gopal Dass, W.I, and Sushant Samir, Asstt. Professor inspected the car, in question on 9.11.2010 at 10.00 A.M. It is evident from the report which is at page 86 of the District Forum file that the car was test driven for 10 KMs i.e. the reading before and after the test drive was 46677 KMs and 46687 KMs respectively. It is further evident that Sh.Naresh, driver of the car, and Sh.Rakesh, an employee of the complainant were present during inspection and test drive. Mr. Nipun from Hind Motors reached the institute at 10.50 A.M. On inquiry from the persons present from the side of the complainant, perusal of records, and after the inspection and test drive  of the car, the following observations were made by the members of the committee ; 

“1.   The pipe which is connected to the clutch system and the fluid reservoir was welded. Therefore breakage/leakage must be there in the past.

2. Welding of fuel tank was also noticed which was to cover some hole in the fuel tank. The hole might have been there on the tank because of some accident or some stone hitting hard to the fuel tank.

3.The shifting of gears was not smooth during test drive. This may be because the required pressure may not be there on the pressure plate.

4. The driver of the car showed a tyre to the committee which is being used as stepny has unusual wear on one side. This may be due to faulty suspension system or wheel alignment. While test driving the suspension system of the car was working properly.

All the observations may be attributed to the fact that the pipe in question had definitely leaked and thereafter welded. The hole in the fuel tank is due to some accident or some hard stone hitting the tank bottom.”

13.        The plain perusal of the aforesaid observations, clearly goes to show that the pipe which was connected to the clutch system, and the fluid reservoir, was welded and, therefore, breakage/leakage must be there in the past. It is further evident that welding of fuel tank was also noticed by the members of the committee which was to cover some hole in the fuel tank. The members of the committee came to conclusion that the hole in the tank was because of some accident or some stone hitting hard the fuel tank. It is further evident from this report that the hosepipe broke and there was leakage in the fuel tank which was only on account of some accident or hard stone hitting the bottom of the tank. The accident must have been on account of  the negligence of the driver of the car. If some damage to the hosepipe or fuel tank was  caused, on account  the accident,  which occurred due to the negligence of the complainant, the OPs could not be blamed for the same, and it could not be said that it was a manufacturing defect. C5 is the e-mail dated21.11.2009, which was sent by the  complaint to OPNo.1, for the first time complaining about the leakage of hosepipe, which was replied to by it (OP No.1 ) vide annexure C-6. This complaint was made after the accident had occurred. From C5, therefore, it was not proved that the defect mentioned therein was in existence when the vehicle was taken to the workshop from time to time. The defect pointed out in C5, was not a manufacturing defect, but occurred on account of accident. 

14.          The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the OPs were bound to   rectify the damage which was caused to it, on account of  the accident, due to  the negligence of the complainant, free of cost,  even if it occurred during the warranty period or not. C-1 is the  copy of the warranty. Clause-8(b)of the warranty lays down that the warranty shall cease to operate and become void if the car has been subjected to negligence, accident, improper use, participation in Motor race/rallies and or any alteration of whatsoever nature. Such a damage, on account of accident,  therefore, was not covered  under the warranty C-1. The OPs were, thus, not bound to rectify such a damage, free of cost.

15.           The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Nangram Bairwa & anr I(200() CPJ 203 (NC) and Narendra Reddy Vs Eicher Motors Ltd. & Ors. III(2008)CPJ32, in support of his contention that it was the duty of the OPs to rectify the defect pointed out, in the complaint, and mere signing of job cards recording satisfaction by the customer did not mean that the defects were rectified. In Maruti Udyog Ltd.’s case (supra), an assurance was held out  to the complainant for the replacement of defective engine kit, but the OPs, failed to do so. It was, under these circumstances, that a complaint was filed and the OPs were directed to replace the engine kit or to pay the cost of it. In that case, version of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. was that the defects indicated by the complainant, were duly rectified, by the dealer’s workshop, which had even replaced the engine. After examination of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion that the engine kit was not replaced and directed respondents No1. & 2 Maruti Udyog Ltd. and the dealer to replace the same and if that was not done, pay the cost of the engine kit. In Narendra Reddy’s case (supra), the defects were not rectified after repairs. It was held that signing of  the job card  by the customer did not mean that the defect was rectified, since the vehicle was not subjected to road test at that time. It was, under these circumstances, that it was held that abnormal vibration, engine getting heated to abnormal high temperature, unusual sound in engine, noticed within few days of purchase, pointed out by the complainant, amounted to inherent defect in the vehicle. Under these circumstances, the OPs were directed to either replace the vehicle or refund its cost with interest. The facts of the aforesaid cases are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, as per job cards, whenever the car was taken to the workshop of OP NO.1, whatever defects were pointed out, were rectified, and the service of the same was done. No defect regarding the leakage of hosepipe and damage to the fuel tank was pointed out. After the defects were rectified, the delivery of the car, was given to the customer to his satisfaction.  After the service of car, and the rectification of defects from time to time, same covered a long distance.  Even report of the committee of experts held that the damage to the fuel tank was due to the accident or hitting  of a stone under the bottom of the same. As held above, these defects occurred on account of the negligent driving of the vehicle of the complainant, as a result of which, the accident took place. These defects, therefore, could not be said to be inherent. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the appellant from the aforesaid cases. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, thus,  being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.