1. The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant  is the registered owner of the vehicle Ford Eco Sport 1.5 Car vide Regd. No.OD-08A-9695,bearing Chassis No.MAJAXXMRKES41585 and Engine No.ES41585 being purchased from Opp.Party No.1. The vehicle  got services regularly before time but the complainant faced problem & issue arises with the service of the OP 2 & 3 since 29.03.2017. In the month of March,2017 the vehicle required service in the engine for which service was done at OP No.2 on dt.29.03.2017 but the problem of the of the vehicle is never ending. On several dates the complainant produced the vehicle for servicing before the OP 2 & 3 but  it is a continuous process of billing  again & again each time without any permanent solution for which the complainant paid a huge amount of Rs.2,69,207/-. Now the vehicle is at the OP 2/G.K. Ford Raipur for servicing but the OP 2  does not found or confirm the defects  and asking for payment to the complainant. The complainant served notice through email on dt.30.11.2017 and 03.12.2017 narrating the grievance and requested to rectify the defect of the vehicle before the OP 1 & 2 but the Ops neither rectified the defects nor gave any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Hence, finding no other option the complainant took shelter of this Commission and prayed to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-  towards mental agony, loss of business and harassment  and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2.  On being notice, the O.P No.1 appeared through their Counsel Shri G. Pattnaik and filed their written version. The Opp.Party 2 failed to appear before this Commission though notice through Registered Post is properly served. The Opp.Party 3 was deleted as per the memo dt.29.08.2023 filed by the complainant.
3. The Op No 1 in his written version admitted the facts   that, the complainant has purchased a Ford Eco Sport 1.5 bearing Chassis No.MAJAXXMRKES41585 and Engine No.ES41585 being manufactured by Opp.Party No.1 (one). It is further submitted that ,the complainant has no claim of any manufacturing  defects/deficiency pertaining to the vehicle against the OP1.Therefore the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party and that ,the OP 1 cannot be held for the action or in action of the authorized dealer  in the present case .Since the allegation is there with respect to the service related ,the same ought to be dealt with the authorized dealers i.e OP 2 & 3 as such the present complaint  against the Op 1/manufacturer devoid of any merits  and not sustainable  either on merits or in the eyes of law and that, the OP 1 has nothing to do with the current alleged affairs there between the complainant  and the authorized dealer i.e the OP 2 & 3 .It is further stated that, the authorized dealers of Opp.Party No.1  is appointed on a ‘Principal to Principal’(P2P) basis, whereby the dealers are sole responsible for their own action related to sales, service and other warranty related claims where on the Op No 1/manufacturer is in no way liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant rather this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission of rival parties. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties placed in the record, the points for consideration before this Commission is that:-Whether there is any defects in the subject vehicle being manufactured by the OP 1 and whether there is any deficiency in service & negligence on the part of the Ops for repairing of the subject vehicle resulting any injuries to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ?
5.  Neither the OP 2(two) nor the Op 3 (three) has appeared or have filed their written version disputing  the allegation made against them as such the averments made in the complaint petition supported by an affidavit of the complainant remain  unchallenged/un rebutted.
6.  It remain undisputed that, the subject vehicle suffered defects several times i.e on  29.03.2017, dt.08.05.2017, dt.17.05.2017, dt.28.06.2017, dt.17.08.2017, dt.02.09.2017, dt.16.10.2017 and lastly on29.11.2017. Since then the subject vehicle is there with the OP 2(Two) but the OP 2 has not yet delivered the vehicle repaired. So also it is found that, several request through e-mail as well as through pleader notice made to the OP 1(one)/ manufacturer for taking action for repairing of the subject vehicle properly but went unheard and subject vehicle is not yet repaired by the authorized Service center of the Op 1(one) remain undisputed.
7. The complainant has purchased the subject vehicle being manufactured by such a reputed company/OP 1(one) may not have any expectation of suffering such a number of brake down of the vehicle.  The subject vehicle suffered defects time again & again within short span  i.e on dt.29.03.2017, dt.08.05.2017, dt.17.05.2017, dt.28.06.2017, dt.17.08.2017, dt.02.09.2017, dt.16.10.2017  and lastly on dt. 29.11.2017.The authorized service center/OP 2(two) is not able to find out  its  permanent salutation and the vehicle is not yet repaired by the authorized Service center of the Op 1(one)  clearly indicate & proved the manufacturing defects there with the subject vehicle . In such circumstances we are of the opinion that , there   cast a duty on the OP 1(one)/manufacturer  to look in to the matter and to take necessary action against  its authorized service centers for proper  servicing & early repairing   of the vehicle by providing required spare parts with  adequate support service so to overcome the defects earlier there on the subject vehicle suffered time & again within a short span as alleged by the complainant but here the OP 1(one) is trying to  escape from its liability taking the plea that, the complainant has not whisper  anywhere in his complaint petition that, the subject vehicle suffered any manufacturing defects clearly proved the deficient service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Op 1 (one) as a result  the OP 2 (two ) has not yet released the vehicle repaired, which certainly caused sufferings to the complainant cannot be disbelief .In such circumstances we are of the opinion that ,  Op 1(one) and 2(two) are jointly & severally liable to repaired the subject vehicle for delivering the same to the complainant without collecting any halting charge from the complainant .
8.  Based on the above discussion, we are of the considered view that, the complainant is entitled to get the subject vehicle repaired and the Op 1(one) & 2(two) are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant causing suffering to the complainant for which Op 1(one) and 2(two) are jointly & severally liable to compensate the complainant by way of repairing of the subject vehicle & by delivering the same to the complainant earliest without collecting any halting charge from the complainant but no other compensation as claimed is admissible . We found nothing deficient service or unfair trade practice proved against the OP 3(three) for which complaint liable to be dismissed against the OP 3((three). Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

This consumer complaint is allowed in part against the Op 1(one) & 2(two) and dismissed against the Op 3three) on contest with the following direction:-

The Op 2(two) is here by directed to repair of the subject vehicle properly and deliver the same to the complainant without collecting any halting charge. The    OP 1(one)/manufacturer is to look in to the matter seriously for early repairing   of the subject vehicle by providing required spare parts &  adequate support service so to overcome the defects  there with  the subject vehicle and get it released to the complainant .This order be complied within four weeks from the date of received of this order failing which the Op 1(one) & 2(two) are  liable to pay Rs.500 each per day till compliance of this order.

       Dictated and corrected by me.

       Sd/-        

President

                           I   agree.

      Sd/-                                    

 Member   

Pronounced, in the open Commission today on this 15^th .day of February 2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly. Judgment could not be pronounced on time in want of quorum.  

The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet  to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission .Ordered accordingly.