1. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed this case against the O.Ps for replacement of vehicle.i.e TATA Magic alongwith compensation and litigation cost.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief fact of the case is that the complainant is a consumer under the purview of C.P.Act.The complainant purchased a TATA magic vehicle from the O.PNo.1 being financed by the O.P.No.3.The O.P.No.3 had granted a loan amount of Rs.4, 29,000/- in favour of the complainant for purchase of TATA magic. The O.P. No.1 granted retail invoice on 30.4.2017 and aforesaid vehicle has been registered as OD 15D 4731 by the RTO, Sambalpur.The complainant has paid regularly EMI through agent.
3. After some months of purchasing of the vehicle, the engine of the aforesaid vehicle was found defective i.e one hole occur in the engine as a result of which, the complainant could not ply his vehicle. The complainant complained before the O.Ps for rectification of defects, but the O.Ps did not listen. On 16.3.2017, the O.P.No.2 forcibly took all the original documents of the vehicle and always the O.Ps threatened the complainant to seize the vehicle from the possession of the complainant. Being aggrieved the complainant filed this case against the O.Ps for proper redressal of his grievance.
4.    On being noticed though all the O.Ps appeared in this case could not file counter except O.P.No.2 1and 4.As such the O.PNno.1 and 3 are set ex-parte in this case. The case of the O.P.No.2  is that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law. The complainant is not a Consumer under the purview of C.P.Act.The case is entirely misconceived, baseless and untenable in the eye of law. The O.PNo.2 had received RC(Smart card),Fitness, permit and Tas documents as the complainant had given surrender,  letter to the company, but the company refused to surrender the vehicle. The O.P.No.2 had immediately returned the original documents to the son of the complainant Jyotiramaya Karna on 6.6.2017.So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice has been caused by the O.P:No.2.
5.  The case of the O.P.No.4 is that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the C.P.Act.The complainant had also received the said vehicle in his possession without any manufacturing defect. The allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle by the complainant has been made without any expert report. On 26.9.2015 after covering the distance of 9500 KM the vehicle was firstly brought to the Service Center Laxmi Sales and service for carrying out the First free service where scheduled free service as duly provided. Thereafter the complainant never approached with the problem of defect in the engine to the company or to the authorized workshop of the company. The complainant has serviced his vehicle always at the local garage which in itself is a violation of warranty terms and condition.
6.  The point of determination in this case is whether the complainant is a consumer under the purview of C.P.Act. Whether deficiency of service and unfair trade practice have been caused to the complainant by the O.Ps Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of vehicle and compensation.
7. The complainant is a consumer under the purview of C.P.Act. Retail invoice dtd.30.4.2017 issued in favour of the complainant shows that TATA Motors finance hypothecated the vehicle paid Rs.3,83,480/- to the O.P.No.1 Due to defective engine, the TATA magic the complainant could not ply his vehicle and sustained financial loss and mental agony, Owing to several approaches, the O.Ps did not listen.
8. Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and counter filed by OP.No2 and O.P 4 document and submission made by them, we direct the O.P.No. 4 to replace the engine of the vehicle i.e TATA magic by new one and to pay compensation for Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant  is at liberty to take step against the O.P. for realization of awarded amount. The case against O.P.No. 1,2 and 3 is dismissed without cost. This case is disposed of accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court under the Seal and Signature of the Forum this the 10^th day of July, 2018.