1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that he purchased one Ford EcoSport 1.5 petrol Trend MT of O.P. No. 2 from the O.P. No. 1 and registered the same with RTO, Malkangiri vide Regd. No. OD-30-A-2199.  It is alleged that on August, 2018 he found the defects in the ABS system that while during switch off the vehicle the lights of speedo meter become on, hand brake lighting and peculiar sound comes inside from the bonnet while on standing off condition of the vehicle, thus he contacted with the O.P. No.1, the authorized service center of the O.P. No.2, where the ABS system was changed for Rs. 29,824/- vide their invoice no. RO18B000124 dated 31.08.2018.It is further alleged that though the alleged part was under warranty and will be replaced with a new one as per warranty manual, but the O.P. No.1 illegally taken such amount which he should not do, and he made several approaches to get back his amount, but did not get any result, thus being harassed he filed this case with a prayer to refund the costs of alleged part with interest and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs of the litigation.

2. The O.P. No.1 represented through their Ld. Counsel who filed counter admitting the service provided by them but denied the allegations contending that they are sub dealer of O.P. No. 2 and have carried out the service work of the alleged vehicle in dispute, but they are not aware of the fact that the alleged vehicle is under warranty and had the complainant informed them regarding the warranty of alleged product, they would have refunded the amount paid by the complainant, as such  showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. The O.P. No. 2 though received the notice from the Fora, which was sent to them through R.P. vide RL No. 909974560IN dated 04.06.2019, but did not choose the appear in the case, nor filed their counter version nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost every opportunities to hear them and allegations made against them remained unchallenged.
    
4. Complainant has filed the relevant documents in support of his allegations, whereas the O.P. No.1 did not choose to file any documents.  Heard from the parties present and perused the documents available in the record.

5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has carried out the service works of the alleged vehicle through O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.1 has raised the invoice amount of Rs. 29,824/- vide their bill no. RO18B000124 dated 31.08.2018.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that during warranty period for replacement of the alleged product of the vehicle, the O.P. No.1 should not take any amount and service charges, but without considering the warranty conditions, the O.P. No.1 illegally taken Rs. 29,284/- from him.  Whereas, the only contentions of O.P. No.1 is that they are not aware of the coverage of warranty over the alleged product and complainant has not disclosed the same before them.  We have gone through the documents filed by the complainant and ascertained that the alleged part is covered under warranty and also covers the extended warranty for 3 yrs to 4 yrs.  Complainant filed document to that effect vide contract no. CO-IND-1270423.  Further the submissions of O.P. No. 1 regarding the fact that they are not aware of warranty conditions of the alleged product is a matter of surprise, whereas they have clearly admitted in their counter versions that they are authorized sub dealer of the O.P. No. 2.  It is well settled law that any dealer or authorized sub dealer of any company must know about the warranty conditions of a product.  But in the instant case, the O.P.No.1 without going through the warranty condition of the alleged product have taken the alleged amount from the complainant and intended to push the burden of proof over the complainant, which is not justified.

6. Further it is ascertained that the O.P. No.1 without going through the documents and service records of the alleged vehicle, has demanded the warranty card, whereas they kept the alleged vehicle with them for its repair and during such period they could have verify the warranty conditions of the alleged product, but without confirming the same with the concerned dealer or company, they have taken the amount from the complainant, which is not justified as per law.  We think, not verifying the documents properly, the O.P. No. 1 has proved deficiency in service on their part. Hence this order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed on part.  The O.P. No.1 is herewith directed to refund the amount of Rs. 29,824/- to the complainant, being taken by them.  Further the O.P. No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation.  All the above direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 29,824/- shall carry interest 6% p.a. from 31.08.2018 to till payment.   Further the O.P. No.1 is at liberty to claim the amount of Rs. 29,824/- from the O.P. No.2 under warranty, if they desire to do so.

    Pronounced the order in the open Forum on this the 1^st day of October, 2020.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.