1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 09.09.2020  he purchased one Hyundai Venue Car 1.5 CrdiMTSX-BSVI bearing chassis no. MALFC81DLLM128542 and Engine No. D4FALM047541 from O.P. No. 1 vide invoice no. Hun-vs/167 and receipt no. 336 dated 09.09.2020.  It is alleged that during his visit to Bhubaneswar on 25.06.2021, he carried out the service work of his vehicle at Utkal Automobiles, the authorized service center at Bhubaneswar on the service due date, but on 27.06.2021 on the way to return to his village, he found defects in the engine and the vehicle did not run, for which he shifted his vehicle to service center of O.P. No.3 and on 14.07.2021 as per instruction of O.P. No.3 he went to receive the alleged car and on returning at about 100 KMs, he found the same defects again for which he again went back to O.P. No.3 for proper repair.  It is also alleged that on 19.08.2021, he received the car and on test drive with the concerned mechanic, the defects reiterated, thus he left the car with O.P. No.3 and paid Rs. 2,500/- towards fuel charges for delivery of the vehicle to his doorstep and returned back. It is also alleged that on several occasions he found the same defects in the alleged car, thus alleging of sale of defective car, he filed this case with a prayer for replacement of the vehicle and Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards fuel charges from the O.Ps.

2. The O.P. No. 1 appeared in the case through their Ld. Counsel, filed their written version admitting the sale of alleged vehicle to the complainant but denied the entire allegations contending that they are not the manufacturer of the alleged vehicle and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on road worthy conditions and they have never received any complaint regarding defects of the alleged vehicle.  Further contended that the complainant availed the service of O.Ps for twice to his satisfaction and till the end of June, 2021 no defects / problems in the alleged vehicle was occurred the car was running defect free for about 9 months. And with other contentions, showing their no liabilities, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. The O.P. No. 2 though received the notice from the Commission, which was sent through Regd. Post vide R.L. No. RO054164400IN dated 08.10.2021, did not choose to appear nor filed their counter nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost opportunities to hear from them and the allegations made against the O.P. No. 2 remained unchallenged.

4. The O.P. No. 3 though appeared in the case, but did not choose to file their counter version nor also participated in the hearing inspite of ample opportunities given to them, as such we lost opportunities to hear from them and the allegations made against them remained unchallenged.

5. Complainant has filed curtained documents to prove his case, whereas the O.P. No. 1 did not choose to file any document in support of their contentions.  Heard from the complainant as well as from the A/R for O.P. No. 1 at length.  Perused the record and materials available therein.

6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the alleged vehicle was sold to the complainant and also the complainant availed the services from the O.P. No. 3.  Complainant filed documents to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that on many occasions he found the defects in the engine and as per suggestions of O.P. No. 1, he availed the service of O.P. No. 3 and alleged the engine as defective one, whereas the contentions of O.P. No. 1 is that complainant has not made complaint to them regarding any defect occurred in the engine, whereas the defects in the alleged vehicle occurred after 9 months of its purchase and complainant availed the service from the authorized service center.
    
7. On perusal f record, it is ascertained that the only allegations of complainant is that during warranty period, the defects in the engine of the alleged vehicle reiterated time to time.  It is also ascertained that the service works were carried out by the O.P.No.3 on many occasions.  Complainant filed one notice dated 14.09.2021 issued to all O.Ps with postal acknowledgement, which revealed that the defects occurred in the alleged vehicle from time to time and such document never been challenged by the O.Ps, whereas the O.P.N0 2 & 3 are well aware about the present proceeding.  As such the allegations made against them remained unrebuttal and unchallenged.  In this connection, we have fortified with the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”

8. Further it is ascertained from the documents filed by the complainant that the notice sent by the complainant has not been replied by any of the O.Ps to make any contradiction.  Hence we think, the engine of alleged vehicle is having defects, which were repaired by the O.P. No. 3 on many occasions.  Further the defects occurred in the engine from time to time, clearly shows that the engine is having defects.  It is also ascertained that at the time of availing of 1^st service and 2^nd service, the complainant has no allegations about the defects in the engine parts, whereas the defects occurred after the vehicle runs for about 9 months.  Hence we do not think that the entire engine is having any defects.  Further at the time of hearing, the complainant submits that due to defects in the Cathetic Filter, the engine of alleged vehicle exhibited defects from time to time.  Hence in our view, the specific part is to be replaced instead of entire engine for running the vehicle smoothly.  Considering the above observation on facts and circumstances, we think, if the alleged Cathetic Filter of the engine is replaced, than the engine will work smoothly, and vehicle will be roadworthy.
    
9. Further it is observed that due to such defects in the alleged part of the engine, complainant must have suffered mentally, physically and as well as financially, which compelled the complainant to knock the door the Commission.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                      ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 2 is herewith directed to replace the alleged defective part i.e. Cathetic Filter with a new one through the O.P. No. 3 and make the alleged vehicle in roadworthy condition within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the costs the alleged part shall carry 10% interest from the date of 27.06.2021 to till payment alongwith with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.  Further the O.P. No. 3 is herewith directed to refund the fuel charges of Rs. 2,500/-, as they could not provided doorstep service within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 10% interest from the date of 27.06.2021 to till payment.

        Since no specific allegations found out against the O.P. No. 1, no order against them.

        Pronounced the Judgement in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of August, 2022.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.