1. The case of complainant is that exclusively for his livelihood by means of self employment and being motivated by the agent of O.P. No. 1, he purchased one PIAGGIO D3S passenger vehicle bearing chassis no MBX0000ZFTH132442 and Engine No. S5G8453129, Colour Black & Yellow from the O.P.No.1 on 29.09.2015 on consideration of Rs. 2,07,800/- vide invoice no. PV223 dated 29.09.2016 being financed by the O.P. No. 5.  It is alleged that after six month of its use, the said vehicle showed several defects and on the instructions of O.P.No.1, he shifted his vehicle to the service center of the O.P.No.1 and the vehicle was got serviced and some parts like base, Piston ring, self motor have been changed for Rs. 1150/- and Rs. 6450/- vide receipts no. PSR 118 and PS 305 both dated 07.05.2016.   It is further alleged that after 15 days, same defects were persisted and the vehicle became idle as unused and his several approaches made to all the O.Ps in this regard got in veined, thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. 1 & 3 to replace a same model trouble free Auto or refund Rs. 2,07,800/- and to Pay Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.
    
2. After receiving the notice from the Fora, the O.P. No. 1 & 3 appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed the counter admitting the sale of the alleged vehicle to the complainant but have strictly denied all the allegations of the complainant contending that the alleged vehicle is used for commercial purpose engaging a driving by the complainant and the concerned driver of the alleged vehicle alongwith Sanju Pal brought the vehicle to their service center for its repair and accordingly they have carried out the repair work on payment basis due to some parts are tampered and repaired by local mechanics and they have waived out the service charges towards repair carried out by them.  Further they have contended that the warranty coverage of the parts of the alleged vehicle is only extent upto for 8 months against any mechanical / manufacturing defects subject to fulfillment of certain conditions like the purchaser of the vehicle should regularly get the vehicle serviced at their authorized servicing center in order to avail the benefit of warranty and since the complainant has not brought his alleged vehicle to their service center in regular intervals, as such he is not entitled any warranty benefits.  Further they have contended that since the alleged vehicle has run for about 8 months, as such there is no any manufacturing defect and the with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
3. The O.Ps No. 2 & 4 though received the notice from the Fora, but did not choose the appear in the present proceeding nor they filed their counter version nor also participated in the hearing, inspite of repeated opportunities given to them keeping in view of natural justice.  As such we lost every opportunities to hear from them.
    
4. The O.P. No. 5 appeared in the case through their Ld. Counsel who filed the counter admitting the sanction of finance towards alleged vehicle but denied the allegations of complainant contending that since they are only financier and have financed the complainant towards purchase of the alleged vehicle, as such they do not have any concerned towards the service of the vehicle.  Hence denying their liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
5. The O.P. No. 6 also appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed counter admitting the issuance of insurance coverage against the alleged vehicle and no specific allegation is made against them, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
6. Complainant has filed certain documents to prove his submissions.  On the other hand the O.P.No.1 & 3 have filed certain documents in support of their contentions.  No other parties to the present dispute have any documents.  Heard from the parties present at length.  Perused the case records and material documents available therein.
    
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the alleged PIAGGIO D3S passenger vehicle bearing chassis no MBX0000ZFTH132442 and Engine No. S5G8453129, Colour Black & Yellow from the O.P.No.1 on 29.09.2015 on payment of Rs. 2,07,800/- vide invoice no. PV223 dated 29.09.2016 being financed by the O.P. No. 5.  Complainant has filed documents to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that after six month of its use, the said vehicle showed several defects and on the instructions of O.P.No.1, he shifted his vehicle to the service center of the O.P.No.1 and the vehicle was got serviced and some parts like base, Piston ring, self motor have been changed for Rs. 1150/- and Rs. 6450/- vide receipts no. PSR 118 and PS 305 both dated 07.05.2016.  Though the complainant could not produce any documents to that effect but the O.P. No.1 & 3 have admitted said fact in their counter contending that the complainant has only paid Rs. 5,200/- and the service charges have been waived out.  It is further alleged that after 15 days, same defects were persisted and the vehicle became idle as unused and his several approaches made to all the O.Ps in this regard got in veined.  Inspite of repeated adjournments the complainant did not produce any documents to prove his submission in regard to the vehicle was shifted to the service center of the O.P.No.1, whereas the A/R for O.P. No.1 & 3 vehemently argued that the complainant for once only had been their service center for repair of the alleged vehicle wherein it is found that no proper care was taken towards maintainance of the vehicle by the complainant and the seal of the excess fuel device was tampered.  However, the considering the complainant as their genuine customer, they have carried out the repair work by replacing half engine at a nominal cost.  During the time of hearing, Complainant admitted the contentions submitted by the A/R for the O.P. 1 & 3 and since there is no proper documentary evidences produced by the complainant, as such the versions of A/R for O.P. No. 1 & 3 cannot be disbelieved.
    
8. Further allegations of the complainant is that he approached the O.P.No. 1 to depute their mechanic for repair the vehicle to make it roadworthy, which was strictly challenged by the A/R for O.P. No.1 & 3 contending that never the complainant has approached them for any repair, afterwards the service was carried out by them for the first time and the complainant never brought his vehicle to their service center at all.  Considering the non availability of any documentary evidence from the side of complainant, we have no hesitation to disbelieve of versions of the A/R for O.P.No.1 & 3.
    
9. Further on perusal of records, it is ascertained that the complainant has filed only the documents related to payment deposited with the finance company i.e. O.P.No. 5 and insurance certificate issued by the O.P.No.6 against the alleged vehicle.  Hence without any cogent evidence towards service particular, we feel, the complainant has not come with proper evidence to prove his submission.  However, considering the submission of complainant, we feel, even though the complainant does not have any documentary evidence to prove his submission, still he is a genuine customer of O.P. No. 1 & 3 which cannot be denied.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complainant petition is partly allowed with a direction to the O.P. No. 1 & 3 to provide the service at their best towards the service of alleged vehicle of the complainant, whenever he brought his alleged vehicle to their service center for any repair.  

Since there is no specific claim against the O.Ps No. 2, 4, 5 & 6, no order against them. Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11^th day September, 2018. 

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.