Briefly stated that the complainant purchased a Scooty Honda Activa-5G on 26.10.2019 from the OPs. However, the Scooty gave multiple problems after 2-3 days of its purchase and he felt that there was some manufacturing defect. The complainant approached OP No.1 alongwith his Scooty and apprised him about the fault. The OP No.2 changed some parts of the scooty and made the same in order. However, the next day the complainant again felt same problems and approached OP No.2 and the OP No.2 changed its 'Chimta', Shocker, digital meter and front cover. The complainant alleged that the scooty was within warranty and even then the complainant was compelled to pay Rs.2000/- and the scooty was made in driving condition. The complainant lodged a complaint with the customer care center of the company. The OP No.2 also charged Rs. 628/- on 18.11.2019 for repairing the scooty. Feeling aggrieved  by the non satisfactory services by the OPs to remove the manufacturing defect, the complainant has filed the present complaint for a direction to the OPs to give new scooty in exchange of the present one and Rs. 50000/- as compensation and Rs. 11000/- as litigation cost.

Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared in person and has submitted that the complainant never came to his shop after purchasing the scooty and did not apprise him of any fault and has never made any complaint till today for the same. Thereafter, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.12.2020.

OPs No.2&3 filed their written version separately and refuted the version of the complainant. OPs No.2&3 have categorically stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and the same is running very smoothly but the complainant is threatening the OPs No.2&3 to get it replaced. It is further alleged that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 15.7.2020 and he complainant visited the office of the OP No.2 to get the vehicle repaired as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The OPs denied having demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- but admitted receiving amount of Rs. 876/- on account of labour and other charges. 

Parties led their evidence in the shape of Self Declarations and copies of the documents. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file very carefully.

There is no proof on record that the complainant ever visited at the workshop of OPs after 2-3 days of purchasing the vehicle and apprising the OPs regarding the manufacturing defect in the scooty. The complainant has not mentioned any defect due to which the scooty cannot be driven smoothly/properly. There is also no report of any mechanic which can shows the defect, if any, in the scooty. When the complainant appeared in person before this Commission, the Commission inquired from the complainant regarding the status of the vehicle to the effect that whether the scooty is being driven by someone or it is parked idle. The complainant confirmed to the Commission that the scooty is being driven by his sister and at present it has a meter reading of 12500 plus kilometers. So the Commission is of the opinion that, if there had been any manufacturing defect or so, the vehicle could not have been driven 12500 plus kilometers in just two years. If there has been any manufacturing defect it would not have been possible to drive the vehicle such kilometers properly.

In view of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the scooty in question. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint fails and the same stands dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be consigned to record.