1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment, he purchased one TATA 610 SFC vehicle from O.P.No.1 vide invoice no. IMKAJY2021000014 dated 28.08.2020 with an assurance of good quality.  It is alleged that after some days of its purchase, the vehicle showed problems in power steering for which he contacted with the O.P. No.1 and repaired the same with due payment and within few months again defects persisted, which was repaired with due payment.Further alleged that since November, 2020 the alleged vehicle exhibited defects on many of its parts from time to time, so also the Euro Tank has been replaced for 3 times, which caused mental agony and financial loss, thus showing manufacturing defects in the alleged vehicle, he filed this case with a prayer for replacement of vehicle or to replace the all defective parts, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. O.P. No.1 appeared through their Ld. Counsel admitting sale of alleged vehicle to the complainant but denied the allegations of complainant contending that they have provided service against the alleged vehicle from time to time as per demand of complainant.  Further contended that as per norms of company, they have charged for spare parts but have not taken any labour charges from the complainant, thus showing their no liability, have prayed to dismiss the case.

3. O.P. No. 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel admitting the sale of alleged vehicle to complainant but denied the allegations contending that complainant has not provided ay report from the approved authority proving the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the vehicle is manufactured through stringent quality checks and road trials after being approved by Automotive Research Association of India and thereafter delivered to the authorized dealer on Principal to Principal basis.  Further contended that since the alleged vehicle had already run 62,897 KMs within a span of year, there is no manufacturing defect.  Further contended that since the complainant has not produced any expert opinion report, as such the claim is complainant is not justified and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his allegations.  O.P. No. 1 has filed the service record of the alleged vehicle, whereas the O.P. No. 2 did not choose to file any documents in support of their contentions.  Heard from complainant as well as the A/Rs for respective O.Ps.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

5. In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that the alleged vehicle of O.P. No.2 was purchased by the complainant from the O.P. No.1.  It is also admitted fact that on many occasions the alleged vehicle suffers from defects and the same were repaired by the O.P. No.1.  It is ascertained from the documents filed by the complainant i.e. job sheet vide no. KSY/TML/2020-21/001502 dated 25.12.2020 and no. KSY/TML/2020-21/001833 dated 10.02.2021, that the alleged vehicle shows the defects on power steering and paid amount as per the invoice raised.  Hence it is safely concluded that the power steering of the alleged vehicle shows defects from time to time.   Further the documents filed by the O.P. No.1 clearly shows that on many occasions they have provided service under warranty and many parts were replaced also, which clearly proves that various parts of the alleged vehicle has been replaced from time to time.  Further the O.P.No.2 has contended that the alleged vehicle is manufactured through stringent quality checks and road trials after being approved by Automotive Research Association of India.  If that is so, then why the parts of alleged vehicle were reiterated defects and needed to be replaced from time to time and in this context, none O.Ps have contended any submissions to that effect.  From the documents filed by the parties, it is observed that the defect occurs specifically in the power steering and Euro Tank.  Hence we feel, the parts replaced by the O.P. No.1 from time to time in the alleged vehicle are not genuine parts.  It is well settled of law that for defect in a specific part, the entire vehicle cannot be replaced.
   
   In the instant case, the alleged vehicle has been run for more than 60000 KMs, hence in our view, the alleged defective parts are needs to be replaced with a new one.

6. Further the O.P. No.2 have pleaded that there is principal to principal relation with the O.P.No.1, but have miserably forgotten that the alleged product is manufactured by them, and it is the bounden duty on their part to observe / inspect the activities of their authorized dealer periodically. In the instant case, the O.P. No.2 have not produced any cogent evidence that they have inspected the activities of their authorized dealer i.e. O.P. No.1 whether the parts replaced are genuine or not, as generally the customers might not have fully aware of technical parts of the vehicle, hence in our view, the O.P. No.2 has miserably failed to watch over the activities of the O.P. No.1.

7. As per above discussions, we feel, both the O.Ps have failed to provide better service to the complainant, as the complainant is a bonafide consumer under them.  Without doing so, the O.Ps have tried to escape from their liabilities, which is not permissible under law.  For such inactivities of the O.Ps. definitely the complainant must have suffered mental agony, and financial loss as well as physical harassment for which the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                       ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.Ps are herewith directed to replace the power steering and Euro Tank with new one free of cost and also to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and financial loss and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation.  All the directions should be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10 %  p.a. from the date of purchase till payment.

        Pronounced the order in the open court on this the 1^st day of October, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.