1. The case of complainant is that exclusively for his livelihood by means of self employment, he purchased one PIAGGIO Auto 3 wheeler bearing chassis no. ZFTL194757 and Engine No. RSL 2717747 from the O.P.No.1 on 31.12.2015 on consideration of Rs. 2,09,800/- through finance from O.P.No.3 for Rs. 1,60,000/-  and registered the same vide Regd. No. OD-30-A-2974.  It is alleged that after five months, the said vehicle did not function properly and gave trouble, for which theO.P. No. 1 repaired the vehicle and charged for Rs. 1650/- and after one month of its repair, the said vehicle stopped its running and showed starting problem and became defunct. While on approach to the O.P. No. 1, he was answered that due to failure of battery the vehicle and they are not responsible for any battery problem, as such the complainant purchased a new battery for Rs. 4594/- from Maa Laxmi Automobiles, thus alleging highhandedness and arbitrary attitude of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs. 1650/- for repair charges and Rs. 4594/- for purchasing of battery and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 20,000/- towardscosts of litigation to him.
    
2. After receiving the notice from the Fora, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed the joint counter admitting the sale of the alleged vehicle to the complainant but have strictly denied all the allegations of the complainant contending that the alleged vehicle carry warranty for a period of 8 months subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions as mentioned in the warranty certificate given to the complainant and the warranty covers only when a customer get the vehicle maintained and serviced at regular intervals in any authorized service center of the company. Further it is contended that the complainant never availed any free service neither under them nor in any authorized service center upto 3^rd free service and brought his vehicle to their service center on 06.05.2016 i.e. after lapsed of 3^rd service with 13089 KM running condition, as such the warranty clause is void to entertain any claim and the repair charges of Rs. 1650/- was taken for costs of parts amounting Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 100/- towards service charges which is in minimal rate.  Further they have contended that the only allegations of complainant regarding failure of battery not for any service rendered to him and it is the manufacturing company of the alleged battery who is liable to replace the same, if complainant is eligible for the same, thus denying their liabilities and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. The O.P. No. 3 appeared in this case and filed their counter versions admitting the finance provided by them to the complainant and since the allegations is only regarding the defective goods of the alleged vehicle, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Parties have filed their respective documents in support of their submissions.  Heard from the parties and perused the case records and material documents available therein.  
    
5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased one PIAGGIO Auto 3 wheeler bearing chassis no. ZFTL194757 and Engine No. RSL 2717747 from the O.P.No.1 on 31.12.2015 on consideration of Rs. 2,09,800/- through finance from O.P.No.3 for Rs. 1,60,000/-  and registered the same vide Regd. No. OD-30-A-2974.  It is also admitted fact that after five months, the said vehicle did not function properly and gave trouble, for which the  O.P. No. 1 repaired the vehicle and charged for Rs. 1650/-.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  The allegation of complainant is that after one month of its repair, the said vehicle stopped its running and exhibited starting problem and became defunct and on approach to the O.P. No. 1, he was answered that due to failure of battery the vehicle and they are not responsible for any battery problem, as such the complainant purchased a new battery for Rs. 4594/- from Maa Laxmi Automobiles.  Whereas the contentions of O.P. No. 1 & 2 is that since the complainant has not availed any free service to be eligible for obtaining warranty benefits as per the terms and conditions of warranty certificate.  Though the complainant has filed one document to prove his allegations towards purchase of new battery from Maa Laxmi Automobiles but miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to show that he has availed the free services from the O.P. No. 1 & 2 inspite of repeated adjournment given to him keeping in view of natural justice. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 has filed one document i.e. job card bearing Sl. No. 1050 dated 06.05.2016 showing that the alleged vehicle was brought to their service center after lapse of 3^rd free service at 13089 KMs.
    
6. We have gone through the documents filed by the parties.  Complainant filed certain documents which are only related to the finance of the vehicle but not a single documents towards service of the alleged vehicle.  From the above submissions and documents filed by the parties, it is clearly evident that the complainant has brought his vehicle to the O.P. No. 1 & 2 on 06.05.2016 at 13089 KMs that is to say after lapse of 3^rd free service period which covers “3^rd Servicing 10,500km – 11,000 km or 120 days, whichever is earlier”.  In this regard, the complainant was given several opportunities to produce documentary evidence to prove the fact that he has availed the free service periodically, but unfortunately, the complainant could not produce any cogent evidence to that effect, hence the versions of O.P. No. 1 & 2 cannot be disbelieved from any angle, and the documents filed by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 remained unchallenged.  In this connection we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Vrs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein Honble National Commission has held that “There is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and document of OP unchallenged by the complainant.”
    
7. Further on perusal of records, it is ascertained that complainant has filed only the documents of M.V. documents and documents related to payment deposited with the finance company i.e. O.P.No. 3 against the alleged vehicle.  Hence without any cogent evidence towards service particular, we feel, the complainant has not come with proper evidence to prove his submissions.  Therefore, we do not think that the present case is a fit case for proceeding.  As such, we dismiss the case having no merits. 

ORDER

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit.  No order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15^th day January, 2019.

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.