1. Brief of the case of complainant is that being motivated by the agent of O.Ps, for his livelihood by means of self employment, he purchased one tractor from the O.Ps vide model no. PREET4549/AV/018/OCIPS bearing Engine No. P345-07968 and Chassis No. BCU4504629 on 04.04.2018 vide delivery challan no. 10 dated 04.04.2018.  It is submitted tha the cost of alleged tractor was Rs. 6,70,000/- out of which he financed for Rs. 4,50,000/- and got registered the vehicle with RTO, Malkangiri vide Regd. No. OD-30-B-8016.It is alleged that after 2^nd service, the said tractor exhibited Crown Sound and PTO gear sound for which he complained to the O.P. No. 1, who assured to depute their mechanic but did not sent.It is also alleged that during 3^rd service at 480 hours on 08.08.2018 he again complained the O.P. No. 1 regarding previous defects and the O.P. No. 1 detained the vehicle for 4 days but failed to rectify the same, for which complainant put his grievance to the O.P. No. 2, who assured to rectify the defects but did not do anything.Thus alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed this case with a prayer to replace the defective Crown and PTO gear box and to pay him Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.
    
2. After receiving the notice, the O.P. No. 1 appeared on their behalf and on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and filed their counter admitting the sale of alleged tractor and of its finance but denied the other allegations contending that the complainant has personally came to their dealership to purchase one tractor and after being satisfied, he exchanged his old tractor and purchased the alleged tractor on finance.  It is also contended that the cost of vehicle is Rs. 6,70,000/- out of which, the complainant availed finance of Rs. 4,50,000/- and during such transaction, complainant has not paid the balance dues of Rs. 26,000/- to them and to avoid of such payment, he filed this case.  Further it is contended that as per complaints of complainant regarding crown sound and PTO gear sound, they rectified all the defects to his satisfaction vide their job card no. JC/41 dated 08.08.2018 and they have carried out the service on free of costs which was also acknowledged by the complainant. Further it is contended that on 14.02.2019 they had been to the residence of the complainant and after verified the vehicle, they suggested the complainant to bring his vehicle to their service center for proper service, but till date the complainant did not bring his vehicle.In this regard, the O.P. No. 1 on 23.02.2019 sent a letter vide no. 23/19 to the complainant to bring his vehicle, but without bring his vehicle, he filed this case only to harass the O.Ps.Further they have contended that they are still ready to replace the alleged defective parts under warranty and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. Parties have filed respective documents to support their submissions.  Perused case record and material documents available therein.  During hearing, the complainant was absent on repeated calls, as such we heard from the O.P. No. 1 and lost every opportunities to hear from complainant.
    
4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the alleged tractor from the O.Ps bearing model no. PREET4549/AV/018/OCIPS bearing Engine No. P345-07968 and Chassis No. BCU4504629 on 04.04.2018 vide delivery challan no. 10 dated 04.04.2018.  The submissions of complainant is that the cost of alleged tractor was Rs. 6,70,000/- out of which he financed for Rs. 4,50,000/-.  Parties have filed documents to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that after 2^nd service, the said tractor exhibited Crown Sound and PTO gear sound for which he complained to the O.P. No. 1, whereas the O.P. No. 1 has admitted the same but contended that as per complaint of complainant, they have rectified all the defects to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and also filed one letter dated 03.08.2018 issued by the complainant to prove their submission,  wherein complainant has admitted that the service carried out by O.P. No. 1 is to his utmost satisfaction and the said fact was never challenged by the complainant.  The further allegations of complainant is that the O.Ps have not deputed their engineer to rectify the problems like Crown sound and PTO gear sound, whereas the contentions of O.Ps is that on 14.02.2019 they have deputed their service engineer Mr. Dileswar Patro to the residence of complainant, who checked the alleged vehicle and advised to visit with the vehicle to their dealership and also filed one letter dated 23.02.2019 vide no. 23/19 to prove their submissions.And all the contentions of O.Ps have never been challenged by the complainant. From the above discussions, it is clearly proved that the O.Ps have provided their utmost service to the complainant, hence we think there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further it is observed that the sole allegations of complainant is only regarding the defects in Crown Sound and PTO gear sound, whereas the O.Ps have contended that they are ready to replace those parts under warranty.Hence considering the allegation of complainant and submissions of O.Ps, we herewith direct the O.Ps to replace the alleged defective parts under warranty.
    
5. Further the contention of O.P. No. 1 is that the complainant is having outstanding dues of Rs. 26,000/- towards the entire transaction of the alleged vehicle and also they have mentioned the details of the transaction in their counter version.  Though the complainant has received the counter version of the O.Ps but did not challenge the said fact and also not participated in the hearing to make any contradiction inspite of repeated opportunities given to him.  Further it is seen that the complainant is absent during hearing on repeated calls, as such we do not have any hesitation to disbelieve the version of the O.Ps.  In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it is held that “There is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and document of OP unchallenged by the complainant.”  Since there is no any contradiction made out by the complainant, we herewith direct the complainant to refund the balance dues of Rs. 26,000/- to the O.P. No. 1 as per their calculation mentioned in the counter version.Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part with a direction to both parties.  As per the discussions made in the foregoing paras, we herewith direct the complainant to refund the balance dues of Rs. 26,000/- with no interest to the O.P. No. 1 and simultaneously the O.Ps are herewith directed to replace the alleged defective parts of the vehicle with a new one without any service charges immediate after receipt the said payment.  All the directions should be complied within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, defaulter party will be liable to pay simple interest @ 6% p.a. to other party on their respective amount i.e. Rs. 26,000/- of Opp. Party and costs of defective parts of complainant, from the date of this order till payment.

        Pronounced on this the 22^nd day of October, 2019.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.