1. The fact of the case of complainant is that exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment on 20.07.2015 he purchased one Mahindra Maximo Van VX BS3WD bearing Chassis no. MMFC2MCRE6L31006, Engine no. MCE6L24780 from the Op.No.1 on payment of Rs. 4,35,220/-under hire purchase finance from Op.No.2 on 40 mothly installment @ Rs 11,800/- per month and total amount on flat interest comes to Rs. 4,69,200/- and used the same for his transportation work and paid the installments till 15.04.2016. The allegation of the complainant is that on 20.04.2016 the alleged vehicle did not function due to its starting problem as such he reported the matter to the Op.No.1, for which the Op.No.1 deputed his mechanic who removed the part named ECU and advised the complainant to attend the garage along with the said part. Further it is alleged that while he attended the garage of Op.No.1 wherein he was directed to come after a week. And while after a week he had been to the garage of Op.No.1 to collect the said part, he found that the alleged part has not been repaired nor its defect was rectified and the vehicle is standing without any function. Thus alleging unfair practice and deficiency in service, the complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to deliver a same model defect free vehicle or to pay Rs. 4,35,220/- towards costs of vehicle and to pay Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 appeared and  filed their counter admitting the sale of alleged vehicle and service provided by them on many occasion but denied the allegations of complainant contending that after rendering the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd free service the alleged vehicle came for repair on 09.03.2016 at 31201 KMs and on 28.03.2016 at 32102 KMs and thereafter the alleged vehicle never came to their garage for any repair and the complainant never made any complaint regarding the defect of the alleged vehicle and with other contention, they prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. The  Op.No.2  through received the notice from the For a, but did not prefer to appear and file their written version nor participated in the hearing inspite of several opportunities given to them keeping in view of natural justice. As  such we lost opportunities to hear from them regarding the allegations made against them at the time of hearing.
    
4. The Op.No.3 is appeared and filed their written version and denied the allegation of complainant stating that since no specific allegations is made out against them, as such, denying their liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
5. Except complainant no other parties to the disputes have filed any documents in support of their submissions. Heard from the parties present at length through their authorized representedtative and perused the materials available on record.  
    
6. In the case in hand, it is not disputed one that the complainant had purchased the alleged vehicle from the OP.No.1 on 20.07.2015 vide DC No. 229 for Rs. 4,35,220/- with hypothecation to Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ldt. Complainant filed to that effect. It is also not disputed that the complainant has availed 3 nos. of free service and  some paid service from the Op.No.1. Complainant also filed documents to that effect. The allegations of complainant is that on 20.04.2016 the alleged vehicle did not function due to problem in Electronic Control Unit in short “ECU” and he contacted with the Op.No.1, who in return deputed his technicians and removed the alleged part from the vehicle and advised the complainant to attend their garage for its repair and as per his advise, the complainant handed  over the alleged part in their and waited for a week, but after a week he found no repair work was carried out and till today the said part is   lying unprepared for which his vehicle is standing idle. The O.P. No.1 challenged the versions of complainant have only contended that the alleged vehicle has not come to their garage for any repair regarding the defect of ECU, hence they are denying their liability. Now the question arose whether the complainant made any complaint regarding the defect of alleged ECU to the Op.No.1 ?
    
7. We have carefully gone through the documents available in the record and ascertained that except complainant no other parties have filed any documents, as such the documents filed by the complainant remained unchallenged from the side of all the O.Ps. Admittedly the complainant submitted that he has availed 3 nos. of free service from the Op.No.1 and Op.No.1 has also admitted the same in their counter stating that the complainant has availed 3 nos. of free service as on 28.03.2016 at 32102 KMs. Further complainant submitted  that after availing 3^rd service as on 28.03.2016, his vehicle exhibited ECU problem on 20.04.2016 and  vehicle did not function at all and since then lying unused. Whereas the Op.No.1 has submitted that after 28.03.2016 the alleged vehicle has not been produced in their garage for any repair. From the submissions of O.P. No.1 it is observed that if the alleged part ECU is defective and not working, than how it is possible to run the alleged vehicle on the road without the ECU. It is also observed from the submissions of the O.P. No.1 that complainant has never made any complainant regarding the defectiveness of the alleged ECU, but miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to that effect like complaint register to prove that how many complaints they have registered during such period. As such without any cogent evidence, the submission of O.P. No.1 cannot be believable. Though the complainant does not have any documentary evidence to prove his allegations, but the O.P. No. 1 could have produced their complaint registered to prove their submissions. Hence, we think complainant must have lodged complaint regarding the alleged ECU which was not maintained by the O.P. No. 1.
    
8. Further as per submissions of the complainant, the ECU is  under warranty and the defect occurred within 9 months from the date of purchase, as such, he prayed for a new vehicle. The O.P. No. 1 challenged the allegations of the complainant contending that since there is no deficiency in service on their part, the complainant is not entitled any benefits. Considering the submissions of the parties, we feel, since the alleged ECU is defective one and lying idle for about two years without any use, in our opinion, only the ECU is required to be replaced as it is under warranty. Further it is well settled of law that for a small defective part, entire vehicle cannot be replaced and if it will be injustice to law. Hence the complainant is only entitled for replacement of the alleged ECU with a new defect free one.
    
9. Further at the time of hearing, the complainant submitted that due to defunct of the alleged vehicle, he could not run his vehicle and lost his earning, for which he alongwith his entire family suffered in all round and on the other hand, the O.P. No.2 is pressurizing hard to recover their installments dues from the complainant. Since the O.P. No.2 totally absent throughout the proceeding, as such we have no hesitation to disbelieve the versions of the complainant. Considering the drastic condition of the complainant and as per his submission, we feel an opportunity should be given to the complainant to clear off his instilment dues to the O.P. No.2. Since there is no specific claim against the O.P. No.2, considering the submissions of the complainant, the O.P. No.2 is herewith only directed not to pressurize herd the complainant towards recovery of financed instilment till the complainant generates income from the alleged vehicle, so that complainant will be able to clear off his instilments dues to them regularly. Further the complainant is also herewith directed to clear off the instilment dues immediate after the vehicle became roadworthy and income generates from it.
    
10. Further considering the allegations of the complainant regarding his suffering, we feel definitely the complainant who alongwith his family members depends upon the earning from the alleged vehicle, must have suffered mentally, physically and financially which cannot be counted in any terms, and the attitude of the O.P. No. 1 towards neglecting the complainant must have put him in such drastic condition which also cannot be compensated in any kind, which compelled the complainant eye of law. Had the O.P. No. 1 take necessary steps to provide better service to the complainant by repairing the ECU of the alleged vehicle in time, then the complainant could have able to maintain his family and also makes himself out from the financial crisis, but such monopoly attitude of the O.P. No. 1 deprived the complainant to live with sound life, and in our view non providing better service to their genuine customer, the O.P. No. 1 have proved deficiency in service on their part. Hence this order.     

ORDER

    That the complaint petition is allowed in part. The O.P. No.1 is herewith directed to replace the alleged ECU of the vehicle with new defect free ECU with immediate effect and make the alleged vehicle roadworthy and to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing with the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order.

    Since there is no specific claim against the O.P. No. 3, no order against them. Parties to bear their own costs.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of November, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned