Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President.<br /> The Complainant pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> The Complainant working as a Primary Teacher at village Ainlapali situates at about a distance of 5(five) kilometers from her residence. For easy and smooth performance of her job, she purchased a TVS Scooty Teenze Motor Cycle bearing Frame No. MD 622AL 1182N 12503 and Motor No. OLIH 84001155 on Dt.05/02/2009 from the Opposite Party No.1(one), authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.3(three) on payment of Rs. 31,792/-(Rupees thirty one thousand seven hundred ninety two)only. The Opposite Party No.1(one) delivered the Scooty along with its Owners Manual containing warranty card and free service coupons, money receipt No. 2348 Dt.05/02/2009 during the subsistence of warranty the Scooty completely stopped functioning for which the Complainant brought the matter to the notice of the Opposite Party No.1(one) who assured her to repair the vehicle at her home by sending mechanic within a day or two. But as the Opposite Party did not take any action to repair the Scooty the Complainant time and again reminded to Opposite Party No.1(one) for the same. Finally the Opposite Party No.1(one) assured the Complainant to bring the Scooty to his show-room for necessary repair.<br /> <br /> On Dt. 10/04/2009 the Complainant with her husband brought the Scooty to the show-room of Opposite Party No.1(one) by hiring goods vehicle on payment of transportation charges where after the Complainant delivered the Scooty to the Opposite Party No.2(two), the authorized service centre on the advise of Opposite Party No.1(one). After received the Scooty he issued a job card No. 81 Dt.10/04/2009 to the Complainant and assured her to repair the same and give delivery of the same at about 6 PM of same day. The Opposite Party No.2(two) could not repair the Scooty and said her to take some more time for repair of the Scooty. Non delivery of the Scooty for a long period by the Opposite Party No.2(two) after making necessary repair shall supposed that the Scooty is not at all repairable condition and has got manufacturing defects. The matter was intimated to Opposite Party No.3(three) through E-mail Dt.12/05/2009 asking for replacement of the Scooty but they did not respond and remain silent till date.<br /> <br /> Alleging deficiency and negligence in providing service and also unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties the Complainant filed this case and claims for replacement of the Scooty with a new one or to pay Rs.31,792/-(Rupees thirty one thousand seven hundred ninety two)only the cost of the Scooty with 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum Rs.600/-(Rupees six hundred)only towards the transportation charges and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only compensation towards harassment, mental agony and litigation cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) in their version admit that the Scooty in question has been purchased from Opposite Party No.1(one) and that on developing some trouble the same was brought to the Opposite Parties for repair which was detected as a defect in the acceleration tube of the Scooty. Being a new model product the affected part was not readily available with the Opposite Parties for which the husband of the Complainant was asked to wait for some days to remove the defect. When the vehicle was made fit to ply by replacing the affected part the Complainant was intimated through letter Dt.22/06/2009 issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to receive back the Scooty. But with out doing so the Complainant files this case to demand a new vehicle. The Company has given instruction in his users manual that the user of the vehicle has to bear such inconvenience caused due to non-availability of parts of the vehicle as the same being new model product.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contends that they have not caused any deficiency or negligence in providing service to the Complainant for which they have to pay compensation to her. They also deny the maintainability of the case in this Forum and pray for dismissal of the same with cost.<br /> <br /> Opposite Party No.3(three) has been set ex-parte.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition Opposite Parties's version as well as the copy of documents filed by the Parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> Admittedly the Scooty was purchased from the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.05/02/2009. It completely stop functioning on Dt.03/03/2009 i.e. only after a month of its purchase and the matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Party No.1(one) assured the Complainant to send mechanic to her house to repair the Scooty, but did not do so even after repeated request. On the instruction of Opposite Party No.1(one) the Complainant brought the Scooty, to the show-room on Dt.10/04/2009 by hiring a goods vehicle on payment of transportation charges. The Scooty was again brought to the Service Center i.e. Opposite Party No.2(two) being asked by Opposite Party No.1(one) and was received by the Opposite Party No.2(two) for repair vide job card No.81 Dt.10/04/20009.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) issued a letter Dt.22/06/2009 to the Complainant to receive back the repaired Scooty which was made fit to run after replacing the defective part.<br /> <br /> A scanning of the facts and circumstances makes it clear that, admittedly the new Scooty stopped functioning only after a month of its purchase. It was retained in the work shop of Opposite Party No.2(two) for about two and half months due to non-availability of the part, the Scooty being a new model product. The Opposite Party No.1(one) informed the Complainant to take back the repaired Scooty vide his letter Dt.22/06/2009 i.e. after five days of the filing of the present complaint. The Complainant is a woman working as a Primary Teacher and had purchased the Scooty to attend to her place of work which is five kilometers away from her house. Due to the defect in the Scooty and its non-repairing for about two and half month she has faced physical hard ship, mental agony as well as monetary loss as she had to bring the Scooty on hired transport vehicle for repair to the Opposite Parties at Bargarh by incurring an expense of Rs.600/-(Rupees six hundred)only. The Opposite Parties admit that the vehicle is a new product and user of the vehicle has to bear any such inconvenience cause due to non-availability of parts of the vehicle.<br /> <br /> The Complainant has to attend her place of work daily and since there is likelihood of the vehicle developing such trouble being a new product, she can not take the risk of again using such Scooty. In view there of, the price of the Scooty should be refunded to the Complainant along with the cost of transporting the Scooty from the village of the Complainant to the work shop of the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> The Complainant has purchased the Scooty by paying the cost of the same to the Opposite Party No.1(one) and now she can not be subjected to further harassment to go to the Opposite Party No.3(three) for replacement of the defective new product. In the result, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to refund to the Complainant Rs.31,792/-(Rupees thirty one thousand seven hundred ninety two)only the price of the Scooty in question, Rs.600/-(Rupees six hundred)only towards the transportation charges borne by the Complainant and Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand)only towards cost compensation with in thirty days hence, failing which the total amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.