1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 16.10.2019 he purchased one TATA Ultra T-7 from the O.P. No.2 with assurance of free warranty service and registered the same with RTO, Malkangiri vide Regd. No. OD-30-C-6800.  It is alleged that on 17.12.2019 while he had been to Warrangal, he found starting problem on running condition, as such he handed over the vehicle to O.P. No.1 for its repair, who carried out the repair work vide job card no. JC-SveEng-WP-2-1920-001511 and raised the invoice for Rs. 5,593/- including labour charges of Rs. 1,180/-, and on asking to O.P. No.1 regarding amount raised for labour charges, who replied that since the invoice was already raised the said amount will refunded after due approval of O.P. No.2.Since no amount was refunded, he complained to the O.P. No.2 which was registered vide no. 1-135340623943, but no result.Further it is alleged that on 01.06.2020 while he had been to Telengana, he found the same problem and also defects in gear box, thus he again shifted his vehicle to O.P. No.1, where the invoice was raised vide job card no. JC-SveEng-WP2-2021-000253 for Rs. 9,570/- which includes the labour charges of Rs. 7,670/- and finding the same principle of O.P. No.1 he again complained to O.P.No.2 vide complaint no. 1-136175785442, but to no result, thus showing deficiency in service, he filed this case claiming of replacement with new vehicle or to refund the illegal labour charges taken from him with Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.

2. The O.P. No. 1 though received the notice from the Commission, which was sent through Regd. Post vide R.L. No. RO025106736IN dated 13.10.2020, did not choose to appear nor filed their counter nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them.

3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed the counter version admitting the service provide by them but denied the allegations contending that the cars and vehicle manufactured by the O.P. No.2 pass through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts after due approval of Automotive Research Association of India.  Further contended that the self motor problem occurred due to over cranking for which the flywheel ring gear got damaged which is only due to the negligence of the customer or the driver and also contended that as per terms and conditions that the damaged caused due to the negligence and misuse on part of the customer are not covered under the warranty and with other contentions, showing their no liability, they have prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Complainant has filed document like :

1. Copy of job card no. JC-SveEng-WP-2-1920-001511 showing the invoice for Rs. 5,593/- including labour charges of Rs. 1,180/-,
2. Copy of job card no. JC-SveEng-WP2-2021-000253 for Rs. 9,570/- including the labour charges of Rs. 7,670/-.

Whereas the O.P. has filed the documents like :

1. Copy of warranty terms and conditions
2. Copy of tax invoice vide JC-SveEng-WP2-2021-000253 for Rs. 9,570/- including the labour charges of Rs. 7,670/-.

5. Heard from the complainant and A/R for O.P. No.2 at length. Perused the case records and material documents available therein.

6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the O.P. No.1 has carried out the service work of the alleged vehicle twice vide job card no. job card no. JC-SveEng-WP-2-1920-001511 and JC-SveEng-WP2-2021-000253 during warranty period.  The allegations of complainant is that during warranty period, the O.P. No. 1 has illegally taken labour charges for Rs. 1,180/- and Rs. 7,670/- respectively, which they were supposed not to charge, whereas the contentions of O.P. No. 2 is that the defects occurred only due to the negligence of the complainant for which they have taken the labour charge and as per terms and condition, are not covered under warranty, hence they have no deficiency in service on their part.  
    
7. On perusal f record, it is ascertained that the only allegations of complainant is that during warranty period, the O.P. No. 2 has illegally taken labour charges twice which is violation of warranty conditions.  In this connection, we have gone through the service job sheets filed by the complainant issued by the O.P. No. 2 and found that the O.P. No. 2 has the taken labour charges of Rs. 1,180/- and Rs. 7,670/- respectively.  Though the O.P. No.2 filed counter and participated in the hearing, but did not choose to bring out any evidence to prove that the alleged defects occurred only due to the own negligence of the complainant, whereas the O.P. No.2 must have cogent evidence to prove their submissions, as the complainant has availed the service of the O.P. No.1 who is the authorized service centre of O.P. No.2.  But without doing so, they have intended to push the burden of proof on the complainant, whereas it is also the duty of O.P. No.2 to disproof the allegations of complainant.  Further it is seen that for a common man it is not always possible to bring the expert opinion report to prove his allegations.  

8. It is ascertained from the document filed by the O.P. No. 2 i.e. warranty terms and conditions in clause no. 7 wherein it is mentioned that “ this warranty does not cover normal wear and tear of the vehicle or the parts or any damage due to negligent or improper operation or storage”.  Though there is specific clause mentioned therein, though they have raised to dispute regarding own negligence of the customer, but have miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove their contentions regarding the damaged caused only due to the own negligence of the complainant.  Hence such contentions does not have any stand value on its part and we feel, the O.P. No. 2 should not charge the labour charge of Rs. 1,180/- and Rs. 7,670/- against any repair work carried out by them and charging such amount is clear violation of terms and conditions of warranty conditions, which is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 2.

Further the claim of complainant for replacing the alleged vehicle with a new cannot be entertained at this stage as the alleged vehicle is in running condition and the total allegations is only claiming labour charges.  We have gone through the service job sheets and found that all the services carried out properly but only the thing regarding charging of amount towards labour charge and and the complainant has also paid the entire labour charges.  Hence we do not feel the entire vehicle is needs to be replaced.  Further it is well settled of law that either for a minor defect or for any simply charge towards repair, the entire vehicle cannot be replaced.  Hence considering the job sheets and submissions of parties, we think that the complainant is only entitled only for the refund of labour charges. Further we feel, due to such illegal charge towards labour work, complainant must have suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, as he has tried his best to get back his amount taken by the O.P. No.1 and such improper service by the O.Ps have compelled the complainant to take shelter before this Commission.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                                        ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 2 is herewith directed to refund the labour charges of Rs. 1,120/- and Rs. 7,670/- i.e. Rs. 8,790/- in toto, being taken by their authorized service center alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation, within one month from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the total amount of Rs. 8,790/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from 01.06.2020 till payment.  Further the O.P. No.2 is at liberty to recover the said amount from the O.P. No.1, if they desire to do so.  

        Pronounced the Judgement in the open Forum on this the 09^th day of July, 2021.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.