Presented by Miss R. Pattnayak, President .

(1) Deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties (in short Opposite Parties) and failure to replace the defective vehicle on the ground of manufacturing defect which was purchased by the Complainant from Opposite Parties is the allegation of the Complainant.

(2) Brief facts of the case are that, the Complainant purchased a Tata ACE motor vehicle from the authorised dealer Opposite Party No.1(one), which was manufactured by Opposite Party No.3(three) by taking financial assistance of Opposite Party No.2(two), the financer for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self employment. After due execution of documents and after following all the procedures laid down for the purpose by the Opposite Party No.1(one), the complainant took delivery of the said vehicle on dated 8.5.2008 bearing Chassis No. 445010CRZV08993 and Engine No.2751D105BRZ508623 along with the related documents such as operator's service book containing warranty terms and conditions, free service eligibility paper, vehicle delivery acknowledge note and the vehicle was subsequently registered and numbered as OR-17-F-0913 by the Registering Authority, Bargarh.

Soon after its purchase, certain defects particularly in the battery, tyre and engine during warranty period was noticed. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the Opposite Party No.1(one) several times for removing the defects. Even after several repairs of many parts including Engine itself, defects was not removed. As the Engine gave problem within the warranty period after purchase and after some free services provided by expert Engineer of the Company the Engine of the vehicle was recommended to be replaced by the Service Engineer of Opposite Party No.1(one). The Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1(one) to replace the engine and others free of charge as the defects occurred during the subsistence of the warranty period. The Opposite Party No.1(one) instead of covering all those replacements free of cost insisted for payment to replace the engine and did not take any step to get replacement from the manufactured of the vehicle, tyre and Battery. Though it was duly informed to the respective authorities through Opposite Party No.1(one) but they denied their liability on fictitious grounds stating the same to be not covered under their terms of warranty. The Complainant further submits that, the Opposite Party No.1(one) rejected his claims on the false ground stating that the vehicle has not been serviced on due date and kilometers as well as in accordance with the owner service manual and further instructed him to arrange payment of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only in advance to attend the job. Finding no way out the Complainant had to make payment of the amount of Rs. 19,350/-(Rupees nineteen thousand three hundred fifty)only for the engine and Rs.8,363/-(Rupees eight thousand three hundred sixty three)only for other parts and service charge as demanded by Opposite Party No.1(one) through the Complainant was not liable to pay the same to the OP No.1(one) as the vehicle was within the warranty period. It is further submitted by the complainant is that, being the dealer cum seller and service provider of the vehicle , the O.P. No1(one) is duty bound to provide it's services to the complainant who had purchased the vehicle from it but deliberately and intentionally taken money from him by showing wrong Kilometer reading in the service history prepared by it. He further submits that the service history dated 25.4.2009 reveal the Kilometer as 33315 where as the service history dated 26.5.2009 reveals Kilometer as 27705 and the engine was replaced on dated 27.04.2009. the O.P. No.1(one) had also deliberately reflected wrong date of sale of the vehicle and kilometers covered respectively as dated 10.05.2008 and 33214 in it's letters and in retail invoice though the vehicle was sold on dated 8.5.2008 and kilometers covered as on dated 21.4.2009 was much below the kilometers range stipulated for third free service eligibility. So the afore said acts of the O.PNo. 1 towards the complainant are clearly falling within the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as well as due to the above act he could not be able to earn his livelihood properly and also sustained financial loss.

As regards to the Opposite Party No.2(two), the Complainant's allegations further is that, though the actual cost of the vehicle was Rs. 2,68,866/-(Rupees two lakh sixty eight thousand eight hundred sixty six)only, Rs. 3,16,000 /-(Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only has been financed for the vehicle which is beyond his knowledge. Opposite Party No.1 (one) and No. 2(two) with hands in gloves have managed to finance much more amount then the actual cost of the vehicle. Taking advantages of the defunct condition of the District forum and through it was within the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.2(two) that the case relating to the vehicle question is Sub-Judiced in the forum, the Opposite Party No.2(two) illegally and arbitrarily seized the vehicle from him on Dt.26/11/2010 by engaging muscle man without any prior Notice and subsequently served notice on Dt.08/07/2011 on him to sell the vehicle by auction which was protested by him through Advocates vide its letter Dt.26/07/2011. In spite of due receipt of the letter the Opposite Party No.2(two) vide its letter Dt.01/11/2011 instructed him to participate in the process of auction sale of the vehicle or to fetch buyers of higher price for the vehicle but inview of the pendency of the complaint case and reply dated 26.7.2011, he did not choose to participate in the auction sale. But surprisingly, the opposite Party No.2(two) again served letter Dt.04/09/2012 calling upon the Complainant to discharge the full liabilities of Rs. 3,16,000/-(Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only plus interest with an ulterior motive just to defeat the interest of the Complainant and the present complaint. The complainant further submits that , he is not liable to pay the excess amount financed with it's interest as the O.PNo.2 is guilty of suppression of material facts.

Therefore being aggrieved, the Complainant is constrained to file this case against the Opposite Parties for unfair trade practice as well as under the heading deficiency in service as defined under Consumer Protection Act on the ground of manufacturing defect of the vehicle as necessity for replacement of the engine within the warranty period cannot be said otherwise than manufacturing defect and sanction of more amount of loan then the actual cost of the vehicle seeking replacement of the vehicle with a new one or refund of Rs.3,16,000/-(Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only, the amount financed for the vehicle with interest @ 18% (eighteen percent) per annum besides Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only, towards the amount of Compensation and litigation costs.

(3) In support of his case, the Complainant has filed the following documents and written argument along with citation of \Hon'ble National Commission which are attached to the case record.

1. Copy of vehicle Delivery Acknowledgment Note Dt.08/05/2008.

2. Copy of Retail invoices Dt.08/05/2008, Dt.25/02/2009, Dt.25/03/2009, Dt.22/04/2009, Dt.27/04/2009, Dt.15/06/2009.

3. Copy of Operator's Service Book showing warranty terms and condition.

4. Copy of Free Service Eligibility information.

5. Copies of Estimates Dt.30/07/2008, Dt.08/10/2008, Dt.07/11/2008, Dt.23/02/2009, Dt.25/02/2009, Dt.25/05/2009, Dt.15/06/2009, Dt.17/08/2009 and Dt.08/10/2009.

6. Copy of rejection letter of Appllo tyres ltd.

7. Copy of rejection letter Dt.19/05/2009 of Metro Business Bureak Pvt Ltd.

8. Copy of R.C. Book of the vehicle Dt.15/05/2008.

9. Copy of statement of Loan account.

10. Copy of Notices Dt.29/12/2008 and Dt.13/05/2009 of Opposite Party No.2(two).

11. Copy of Letter of Opposite Party No.2(two) to the Complaiant.

12. Copy fo possessed vehicle inventory list.

13. Copy of letter of Opposite Party No.2(two) to the Complainant.

14. Copy of Advocate Notice with postal receipt and A.D..

15. Copy of letter of Opposite Party No.2(two) to Complainant.

16. Copy of Demand Notice of Opposite Party No.2(two).

17. Copy of Advocate reply with postal receipt.

18. Copy of R.C. Book of vehicle No. OR-17/F-0913 with copy of Smart Card.

19. Copy of Insurance Policy with Engine No. and Chassis No.

     

(4) Notice were duly served on the Opposite parties. The Ops appeared and filed their written version separately.

(5) While denying the alleged deficiency in service, as well as unfair trade practice the Opposite Party No.1(one) in his written version has pleaded that the contents of the Complaint petition is false and is not maintainable. He contended that, after purchase, he has regularly providing the service on the vehicle and the Complainant never complained about the defects of the vehicle to him at any point of time. It is further contended that during the free service period, only the amount requires for the mobile oil etc. has paid to him by the Complainant and on request of the Complainant, he replaced the old engine by receiving the cost of Rs. 19,350/-(Rupees nineteen thousand three hundred fifty)only for the engine and Rs. 8,363/-(Rupees eight thousand three hundred sixty three)only for other parts. It is further contended that since the Complainant has not made parties to the selling and manufacturing company of the battery, tyres, so he is not liable to that effect because battery and tyres fitted with vehicle is selling and manufacturing by different company and they will provide the service as per the term and condition applied to the warranty. It is further submitted by the O.P. No.1(one) that the complainant approached him to purchase the vehicle and as the complainant was unable to purchased the same and on the request of the complainant he introduced the complainant with the O.P. No.2(two) and purchased the vehicle under the finance scheme. The cost of the vehicle was Rs. 2,68,866/- and finance amount was Rs. 3,16,000/- which includes the cost of the vehicle, insurance amount, Registration fees and other charges of Registered office and other fabrication cost of the vehicle. Hence dismissal of the Complaint was prayed.

(6) The Opposite Party No.2(two) in his written version and additional written version, while admitting that the Opposite Party No.1(one) is the authorized dealer of Tata Motors Co. Ltd and deals with sale and purchase of Tata ACE Motor vehicle has denied all the allegations made by the Complainant against him. The Opposite Party No.2(two) submitted that he has financed a total sum of Rs. 3,16,000/-(Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only infavour of the Complainant towards the cost of vehicle and cost of the insurance, registration and accessories supplied by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the said amount has been transferred to the loan account of the Complainant and thereafter the said amount has been transferred in favour of the Opposite Party No.1(one) on the request of the Complainant through R.T.G.S.. Accordingly the Opposite Party No.2(two) delivered the vehicle to the Complainant and issued the Money Receipt of Rs. 3,16,000/- (Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only acknowledging the receipt of the same. It is further contended by the Opposite Party No.2(two) that Complainant never complained at any point of time about the sanction of more amounts as the every transaction of sanction of loan of Rs.3,16,000/- (Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only has been participated by the Complainant and he has signed all the documents. It is further contended by the Opposite Party No.2(two) that at the time of sanction of loan amount, the Complainant has executed deed of Hypothecation-Cum-loan agreement and authorized him (Bank) to repossess the vehicle and sell the same and adjust the sale price in the loan account in case of violation of agreement defaulting to replay the loan amount. Since the time of sanction of the loan amount, the Complainant did not pay the loan amount in spite of his several request, so in ultimate he took necessary steps for realization of the loan amount and seized the vehicle. It is further submitted by Opposite Party No.2(two) that the Complainant has filed this case against him without any cause in order to not to repay the loan amount only and he has not made any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice with the Complainant. Therefore prayed for dismissal of the case.

In support of his case, the Opposite Party No.2(two) filed the following documents:-

1. Copy of Hypothecation agreement executed by Raj Kumar Sahu in favour of S.B.I., A.D.B., Bargarh Branch for loan amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- (Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only.

1. Letter of consent signed by Rajkumar Sahu for acknowledging the loan amount and hand over the vehicle to him.

2. Copy of up to date Account Statement.

3. Money receipt of Laxmi Sales and Services for an amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- (Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only received from the loan account No. 30332237430.

4. Quatation price of the vehicle signed by Rajkumar Sahu.

5. Registration Certificate bearing No. OR-17-F-0913 of Tata ACE 275 IDI infavour of Rajkumar Sahu.

(7) The Opposite Party No.3(three) in his written version denies to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant and also denied all other allegation made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.3(three) submitted that there is no manufacturing defect. There is also no report of the Expert to bolster the case of the Complainant. There is also not even any iota of evidence that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. As per the terms of the warranty, the defect noticed cannot be rectified under the warranty. It is further contended by the Opposite Party No.3(three) is that he is the renowed manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicles and passengers cars and is widely acclaimed for its class and quality. The cars and vehicles manufactured by them passes through stringent quality check and road trial before the actual commercial production starts and the cars and vehicles are marketed only after being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India. Before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorized dealer appointed on a principal to principal basis for sale, the cars and vehicle manufacturers are thoroughly inspected for that control systems, quality and test drive.

The Opposite Party No.3(three) raised the following objections against the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint case on the following grounds.

1. That the Complainant's case is not maintainable as he has concealed some material facts.

2. The allegations of Complainant about manufacturing defect in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory U/S -13(1) of C.P. Act is mis conceived and base less.

3. The Complainant is not a consumer as he used the vehicle for commercial purpose in order to generate profit.

4. The Complainant had failed to carry out schedules services of the vehicle as per the recommended service schedule and failed and neglect to follow the guidelines given in the operators service books as recommended for smooth and better performance of the vehicle.

5. The present complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties as the Complainant has not implead the manufacturer of the battery and tyre as parties.

6. The Opposite Parties challenges the maintainability of this complaint on the ground of jurisdiction, as this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint as it involves both question of facts as well as law. Hence Civil Court is the proper Forum to agitate the alleged grievance.

In support of his case he has relied upon the following documents and decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission.

1. Copy of rejection Notes Dt.13/02/2009 by Appollo tyres Ltd. (Annexture -A)

2. Copy of rejection Notes Dt.19/05/2009 by Appollo tyres Ltd.

3. Copy of the retail invoice Dt.25/02/2009.

4. Copy of rejection letter Dt.21/04/2009.

5. Copy of the request letter Dt.21/04/2009.

6. Copy of retail invoice Dt.22/04/2009 and invoice Dt.27/04/2009.

7. Copy of service history of the vehicle from Dt.30/07/2008 to Dt.05/06/2010.

   AND

1. Laxmi Engineering Works Vrs. P.S.G. Industries institure (1995 II CPJ-1 (SC))

2. Dr. K. Kumar Advisor (engineering) Maruti Udyog Ltd Vrs. Dr. A.S.narayana Rao and another (2010-CPJ-19(NC))

3. Indian Oil Corporation Vrs Consumer Protection Council, Karala and another (1994) 1-SC-397.

4. Maruti Udyog Limited Vrs Nagender Prasad Sinha and another II (2009) (P) 295 (NC).

5. Bharati Knitting Company Vrs. DHL world wide Express Courier (1996) 4-SCC-704.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the complaint petition, opposite’s parties’ version and the documents filed by the parties in respective of their case.

On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the issues that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the case is maintainable?

2. Whether the vehicle in question suffers from any manufacturing defects?

3. Whether it can be said that the manufacturing defect of the vehicle is such that it warranted replacement?

4. Whether the opposite party No.1 (Dealer) and O.PNo.2 (Manufacturing Company) are jointly and severally liable in regards to deficiency in service?

5. Whether the OP. No.3 is guilty of Deficiency in Service?

ISSUE No.1(one)-

Whether the case is maintainable?

Regarding to this issue the learned counsel for the O.PN.3 raised objection on the maintainability of the case challenging the status of the complainant that he is not a ‘consumer’ and is not entitled for any relief from this forum as the said vehicle in question has been extensively used by the complainant for commercial activities.

We perused the complaint petition where the complainant has submitted that he purchased the Tata ACE vehicle by taking financial assistance of a financer for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. So the forum holds that the complainant is a consumer basing on the explanation appended to Section-2(d)(i) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act which clarifies that ‘’ Commercial Purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

On this point the forum relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of ‘’Laxmi Engineering Works vrs P.S.G industries institute ‘’reported in 1995(2) CPR II where the Hon’ble Court held that ‘’a person who buys goods and use them exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment is within the definition of expression consumer.’’ Another decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2006(1) CPR 4 (NC) –M/S-Pearlite Liners Ltd vrs Thermo Jarrell Ash Corporation and another where Hon’ble National Commission held that ‘’ even though an equipment is purchased for commercial Purpose, if there was a defect or deficiency in service during warranty period buyer would be deemed to be a consumer. Further the complainant has paid towards cost of the vehicle and took delivery of the vehicle for his use. As such the complainant is a consumer and the present case is maintainable. So the Opposite Parties’ contention and the decision explaining that ‘’if any person has obtained goods for commercial purpose with a view to using the said goods for carrying on any activities of profit, other than exclusively for self-employment, such person is excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act’ are not sustainable in this regard because when the question is about whether a consumption has been made for commercial purpose has to be carefully considered and the difference in commercial activities for profit and commercial activities to earn livelihood has to be established. Here the impugned vehicle is a Tata ACE truck just to transport some goods locally to earn the livelihood so the citation filed by the O.P.No.3 cannot be applied in general and contention of the O.P.No.3 is not accepted.

ISSUE No.2(two), 3(three), and 4(four):-

1. Whether the vehicle in question suffers from any manufacturing defects within the warranty period?

2. Whether it can be said that the manufacturing defect of the vehicle is such that it warranted replacement?

3. Whether the opposite party No.1 (Dealer) and O.PNo.2 (Manufacturing Company) are jointly and severally liable in regards to deficiency in service?

Admittedly the vehicle in question was purchased on dated 8.5.2008 from the Opposite Party No.1 through finance proved further through the Copy of the Vehicle Delivery Acknowledgment note dated 8.5.2008, Copy of the R.C Book of the vehicle No. OR-17/F-0913 with Copy of Smart Card, Copy of Money Receipts of Laxmi sales and services and also through the Version of the Opposite Parties. So admitted facts need not be proved. On perusal of the complaint petition and records it is found that the complainant has submitted that soon after its purchase on dated 8.5.2008, the vehicle started problems in the engine, Battery and tyer which is proved from the copy of service history of the vehicle from dated 30.7.2008 to 5.6.2010 filed by both the parties and the defect also arises within the warranty period as is further proved from the copy of operator’s service book where it is clearly mentioned at Clause-1 that the warranty for the vehicle shall be for a period of 1 year from the date of sale or 36,000 KMS of its running which ever occurring earlier. During the period of warranty the vehicle has taken to the workshop of the Opposite Party No.1 on several occasions starting from dated 30.07.2008 only after 83 days of its purchase. It is also clearly reveals from the job cards about some major problems almost in every part of the vehicle. The most serious complaint pertains to engine. On dated 22.04.2009 after the third free service ,the engine was removed and further install on the advice of the service engineer of the Opposite Party No.1 on payment of RS 19,350.00/-. Further on dated 25.04.2009 the battery become week and defective .So on that date the battery was removed and install .On dated 12.09.2009 Alternator not charging and it was removed and install .On dated 9.10.2009 /1.5.2010/5.6.2010 there was some squeaking noise from the front wheel, air filter cartridge become chocked, steering wobbling and complaints on clutch plate. The aforesaid job cards filed by both the parties clearly prove that there were defects in the said vehicle for which the complainant brings the vehicle a number of times to the workshop of Opposite Party to remove the defect. But the Opposite party did not able to remove the defect in the said vehicle for which the complainant was dissatisfied on the service of Opposite Parties and send pleader notice requesting the Opposite Parties to replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price of the said vehicle but they remain silent. The O.Ps trying to shift their wrong, holding complainant as responsible for defect in the engine as the complainant has not done 2^nd free service which cannot be accepted. The Ops also failed to prove that as to in what defective manner, the complainant maintained the vehicle for which the defect noticed. Further the service history filed by the O.P No.1 reveals that it has manipulated the note of readings of the vehicle. Since the said vehicle was defective from the date of purchase and undertake repairing number of times on paid basis within warranty period and the same defect could not be rectified by the opposite parties, so inference could be drawn from the manner and the times it was attended to by the dealer that it is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect which liable for replacement and also liable for deficiency in service. On perusal of copy of rejection letter of Apollo tyres Ltd and copy of rejection letter dated 19.05.2009 of metro Bureau Pvt Ltd, it clearly reveals that they have also not given proper service to the complainant in the matter of tyre and Battery though it is within the warranty period. Opposite Parties submitted that they are not responsible for the tyre and Battery parts which is manufactured by other company. But even though the forum feels that the O.Ps have to assist to purchaser to proceed with the processes when grievance occur on the whole because complainant has purchased the whole vehicle attaching with tyres and Battery from the O.P. No.1(one). It is well understood that a purchase occurred with some hope and aspirations which are not fulfilled in this case and the purchaser suffered from the transaction to a considerable high amount frustrating the whole purpose of transaction. It is the bounden duty of the dealer to attended every defects whenever a new vehicle is sold to a consumer there is an implied contract that the vehicle being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault, or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained. Further so far as the contention of Opposite Party No.3 about production of expert opinion by the complainant from appropriate Laboratory to prove manufacturing defect is concerned it is submitted that the vehicle necessitates change of engine during the warranty period and the service engineer of Opposite Party No.1 who are well trained in the field recommended for change of engine which clearly indicates that whatever defects it had were inherent in its manufacturing which could not remove by way of repair. The O.P.No.3 relied on the decision which speaks about the importance of expert opinion in deciding a case of manufacturing defects. Here in this case the vehicle was purchased on 8.5 2008 and repairing started soon after the purchase which continued for long period. Each time the vehicle is produced before the authorized dealer for repair and the people and mechanics at the service center are the experts in their field so it can be presumed that when they have detected the regular problems at the time of each repair their opinion counts. Hence the need of special expert opinion is not warranted. Further this is a clear case of res ipsa  loquitor where evidence in the form of opinion of technical expert is not required to prove the case as the facts speaks itself .Hence it is clearly established that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defects. On this above points the decisions relied by the complainant reported in judgment dated 29.04.2013 First Appeal No.531 of 2008 National Commission in Tata Engineering and locomotive Co. Ltd. And Another vrs Subash ahuja and another, 2007N.C.J Page 424(National Commission) in Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. And another vrs K.N.Mallappa and another,2008 N.C.J Page 678 (National Commission) Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. in Uttam Pandurang Bhosale, 1993(3) C.P.R Page 274(NC) holds good. It is the duty of the service provider to provide defect free service to his customer so that in future they will faithful on them of their service.

In view of aforesaid discussion, the opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service towards the complainant for which they are jointly and severally liable as claimed by the complainant and the complainant is further entitled to be compensated for the inconvenience and hardship he has suffered because the complainant was deprived of the use of the vehicle in question.

ISSUE No.5(five)- Whether the Opposite Party No.2(two) is guilty of deficiency in service ?

Regarding this issue the complainant alleges that much more amount than the cost of the vehicle has been financed with hands and gloves of O.P. No.1and O.P. No.2 and as such the complainant is not liable to pay the excess amount financed with interest. He further submits that, when the O.P. No.2 pressing hard for repayment of the loan installment, he enquired about the loan from O.P. No.2 and he became surprised to know that an amount of Rs.3,16,000/- has been financed in the name of the complainant though the cost of the vehicle as per the retail invoice issued by the O.P. No.1 was Rs. 2,68,866/-.

To counter the O.P No.2 submits that the complainant requested the Bank for financial assistance of Rs. 3,16,000/- to purchase the said vehicle and the bank sanctioned a loan in his favour to purchase the said vehicle and also delivery order was send to the O.P. No.1 for delivery of the vehicle. At the time of request for the loan, the complainant tendered the quotation slip of the vehicle towards the cost of the vehicle. As per the request and quotation of the vehicle tendered by the complainant the loan has been sanctioned. After the signature and due execution of the necessary documents required for the loan , the bank sanctioned the loan in favour of the complainant.

We perused the Copy of Hypothecation agreement executed by Raj Kumar Sahu in favour of S.B.I., A.D.B., Bargarh Branch for loan amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- (Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only, Letter of consent signed by Rajkumar Sahu for acknowledging the loan amount and hand over the vehicle to him,Copy of up to date Account Statement,Money receipt of Laxmi Sales and Services for an amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- (Rupees three lakh sixteen thousand)only received from the loan account No. 30332237430 which clearly reveals that as per the knowledge the O.P. No2 bank has sanctioned lone. The complainant's pleading ignorance of the details of the sanction of the loan amount cannot be accepted. On perusal of the account statement of the complainant where there is huge amount is outstanding and the complainant has not paid any single amount starting from the received of the loan amount. So the claims against O.P. No.2 can not be considered by the forum.

Hence Ordered:

ORDER

1. The Opposite Parties No.1(one) and No. 3(three) are jointly and severally directed to replace the old Tata ACE Motor vehicle of the Complainant with a new one of the same model and make.

2. The Opposite Parties No.1(one) and No. 3(three) are also jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only to the Complainant towards harassment, mental agony and litigation cost within forty five days, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till the date of realisation of the amount.

3. The Opposite Party No.2(two) however being the financier is exonerated from any charges and allegations, but is free to realise the outstanding financed amount from the Complainant if any.

4. The Opposite Party No.2(two) Bank is further directed to hand over the said old Tata ACE motor vehicle to the Complainant, which is now in his custody as per the oral argument of the Opposite Party No. 2(two) within fifteen days from the date of Order. After delivery of the said old vehicle by Opposite Party No.2(two) to the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.3(three) will hand over a new Tata ACE Vehicle as per order to the Complainant within forty-five days from the date of Order. The Complainant is directed to deliver the old vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1(one) immediately after receiving the new vehicle.

    

Case is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

            I agree,                                           I agree,                                        I agree                                                                                           (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)                  ( Smt. Anjali Behera)             (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

         P r e s i d e n t.                                 M e m b e r.                           M e m b e r.