1.                The present complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as ‘the Act’)  has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that she purchased TVS Wego on 27.10.2010 having Chasis No.MD626AG45AIL51738 & Engine No.0G4LA1055135, colour Brown, Model 2010 vide receipt No.072 dated 01.11.2010 from OP No.1 after paying a sum of Rs.43790/-  as costs of the vehicle in question and  the same was registered with Registering  Authority, Ambala bearing Regd. No.HR01-AB-2124. OPs provided two years warranty on the vehicle and assured that the vehicle is free from defect in material or workmanship subject to the conditions mentioned in the warranty and assured that during 24 months from the date of purchase or during the first 24000 Km of run for the vehicle in the hands of original retail purchaser whichever is earlier, all parts of the vehicle which are having manufacturing defect will be repaired or replaced free of cost.  It has been further submitted that on 04.08.2012, the complainant paid Rs.458/- as service charges to the OP No.3 but on 20.08.2012, the complainant was shocked when she noticed that the TVS Wego has given problem of starting and the complainant again and again try to start the TVS Wego but all in vain and she did not succeed in starting the Wego in question and thereafter, the TVS Wego became dead motion.  It has been further alleged that  the complainant visited  the OP No.3 and narrated  about the problem of TVS Wego.  After checking by service manager of OP No.3, the OP No.3 told that there is a manufacturing defect in it.  The OP No.3 kept the vehicle and asked the complainant to come after three or four days. After 3/4 days, complainant asked for receipt of the vehicle but the OP No.3 assured that the vehicle will be repaired  and defective parts will be replaced and will be handed over to the complainant after further two/three days but OP No.3 failed to remove the defect in it.  Thus, it has been submitted that the vehicle is within the warranty period and it is the duty of the OP to replace or refund the price of vehicle alongwith interest to the complainant or to repair the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Notices were issued to the Ops.  Despite issuance of registered notices, Ops  No.1,2 & 3 did not appeared.  As such, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated  19.02.2013  whereas the Ops No. 1 & 3 were proceeded against exparte on 20.03.2014. 

3.                To prove her case, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the counsel for complainant and gone through the record very carefully. The case of the complainant is that she had purchased  the TVS Wego on 27.10.2010 and the same was having two years  warranty from the date of its purchase or during the first 24000 k.m. of run by the vehicle whichever is earlier.  Said vehicle became defective on 20.08.2012 and the OP No.1 sent the vehicle to OP No.3 authorized service station for its repair on 22.12.2012 which is clear from Annexure C-8 but the same has not been repaired till today rather lying with the service centre of Ops. Thus the counsel for complainant has argued that  the vehicle is having some inherent defect in it  which has not been cured by Ops inspite of retaining the  same for the last more than 2 years and thus it is not repairable. Therefore, it is an admittedly deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such necessary  directions be issued to Ops for replacing the vehicle in question with new one or refunding the cost of the same with interest.

5.                After hearing the learned counsel of the complainant and considering the facts & records of the present case, it is admitted on record that the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 vide documents Annexures  C-1 to C-3 and the vehicle in question having warranty for two years as per  document Annexure C-4.  But the plea taken by the complainant that the vehicle is having some inherent manufacturing defect is not tenable since no any expert mechanic report has been placed on record to prove that the vehicle in question is not repairable. Further the grievance of the complainant that vehicle in question is required to be repaired as per warranty clause is also not believable since complainant has failed to prove that her TVS-Wego has not covered 24000 K.M. run till 20.08.20102 to avail the benefit of warranty as no any word has been mentioned in this regard either in the contents of complaint or in the affidavit Annexure C-X tendered by the complainant in her evidence.  So, in view of the facts narrated above, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle in question has not covered 24000 K.M. from the date of purchase to till 20.08.2012 i.e. the alleged date of defect in it and further the aforesaid vehicle is having manufacturing defect which requires to be rectified as per warranty conditions. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.  Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be supplied to parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT:30.01.2015