The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.P, where O.P is the Proprietor, Sanjay Automobiles situated at N.H-5, Dahanigadia, P.O- Charampa, Dist- Bhadrak. 

                    1. The hub of the dispute is that the Complainant had purchased one TVS Super H.D BS-3DPMET, blue vehicle on 12.11.15 for Rs.29,339/- from the O.P. The said vehicle was purchased by the Complainant with the higher purchase agreement with the TVS Credit Services Ltd., Chennai. But after two months of purchase, the Complainant noticed that the Sensor box of the vehicle got fractured, while driving from his house to Simulia-Markona market, the brake wire were torned and accelerator is not functioning properly. Thereafter, the Complainant requested the O.P to replace the defective Sensor box as well as brake set, which the O.P denied to do the same, rather harassed the Complainant. The Complainant then with the assistance of one mechanic got his vehicle repaired at his own cost. But, the said mechanic informed the Complainant  about the inherent defect crept in the vehicle, which cannot be repaired. The Complainant requested the O.P to exchange the defective vehicle with a new one. But, the O.P did not pay any heed to it. As a result, the Complainant served a legal notice upon the O.P. In reply to the legal notice served upon the O.P by the Complainant, the O.P informed the Complainant to comply the demand. But instead of complying the demand for replacement of the vehicle of the Complainant, the O.P behaved roughly to the Complainant. Prayer for payment of cost of the vehicle along with interest and compensation towards mental agony and harassment sustained by the Complainant and litigation cost.

                     2. Written version filed by the O.P through his Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action. They have further submitted that:-

(a) The Complainant has not made a Party to the manufacturer, who is a necessary Party in this case. Moreover, the O.P has no knowledge regarding the cause of action arose on 23.01.2016, while the Complainant was moving from his house to Simulia.  

(b) The Complainant has availed the free services provided by the O.P time to time, but the Complainant has never complained before the O.P regarding the major defect of his vehicle.

(c) The O.P has further submitted that the Complainant without availing the free service provided by the manufacturer has opened the engine by breaking the seal by unauthorized person having lack of knowledge. As per terms and conditions of the manufacturer, the warranty of the vehicle has been ceased as soon as the opening of engine by breaking the seal by unauthorized person. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed for.     

                     3. On perusal of the documents available in the case record filed by both the contesting Parties, it is noticed that:-

(i) The Complainant has not filed any copy of reply of legal notice given by the O.P, hence the contents of the reply is not ascertained.

(ii) Copy of warranty & services filed by the Complainant supplied with the O.P at the time of purchase of vehicle, where it is clearly mentioned that “the Complainant has to move to the authorized dealer or any authorized service centre with his defective vehicle along with the warranty card & Services Coupon (supplied by the O.P) for repair of his defective vehicle. But, the Complainant has not filed any copy of documents in support of his visit to the authorized dealer/ authorized service centre along with his defective vehicle”.

(iii) The O.P has not filed any copy of document such as Service Job cards availed by the Complainant (Para-10 of W/V filed by O.P).

                     4. It has been argued on behalf of the O.P that when the Complainant has not approached the authorized dealer or any authorized service centre for repair of his vehicle and when the manufacturer has not been made Party, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief prayed for. But on the other hand, according to the Complainant though he has approached the dealer for repair of his vehicle, no specific proof is available. But from the materials available in the case record, it shows that the Complainant is a Consumer and there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P for not taking steps for repair of the vehicle is in question.

                     5. So in the circumstances, this Forum is of the opinion that the O.P should take steps for repair of the vehicle for bringing the vehicle in good running condition with free of cost and to pay compensation for not doing the same till yet. Hence, Ordered:-     

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.P with cost. The O.P is directed to take steps for repair of the vehicle of the Complainant bearing Regd. No.OD-22E-0433 to bring it to good running condition with free of cost and to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for not doing the same in time and cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant. The O.P is also directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this Order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization. Further, the Complainant is at liberty for execution of order under due process of Law.                 

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 26th day of April, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.