Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased  a Mini Truck bearing Registration No.OR-19A-9606 from OP No.1 on 31.7.2007 for his self employment after availing finance from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.4,61,000/-. It is alleged inter alia that during warranty period six months after the purchase the vehicle gave trouble and the complainant contacted OP Nos. 1 and 2 but they did not  try to rectify the defect. However, OP No.1 with much difficulty came to remove the defect and removed the defect within warranty period by receiving Rs. 4,347/- towards repairing charges. Thereafter, several times the vehicle gave defect and the complainant has paid Rs.85,000/- for repairing charges. Due to defect from time to time the vehicle could not run properly and as such the complainant was put to harassment, financial loss and mental agony. Therefore, he filed the consumer complaint showing manufacturing defect and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

4.      OP No. 1 was set ex parte.

5.      OP No.2 filled written version stating that they have extended loan with execution of document. The complainant became defaulter in payment of the loan. There is no any allegation against them.

6.      OP No.3 filed written version stating that the transaction is made between OP Nos. 2 and 3 and OP No. 1 supplied the vehicle. In this regard OP No.3 has no defect or short coming. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

7.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order which is as follows:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

             The opp.parties 1 and 3(one and three) are directed to pay Rs.4,347.00 (Rupees Four Thousand Three Hundred Forty seven) with interest @ 12% p.a. and return back Rs.85,000.00 (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand) spent by the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) along with Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him,  the complainant has not filed any document where he was requested for repairing of the vehicle through OP No.1 after first service is given on 08.5.2005. Further, he submitted that even if he has repaired the vehicle elsewhere but the same is not authorized dealer of OP Nos. 1 and 2. There is no any expert opinion about defect in the vehicle. Thus, learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the facts and law in the case. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

9.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    It is admitted fact that the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 on 31.7.2007 and the vehicle was financed by OP No.2. It is not in dispute that the vehicle within warranty period has visited the service centre of OP No.1. It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove his case and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Before going further, we have occasion to verify the first service job card dated 8.5.2005. On going through the same, it appears that normal vehicle check up has been made without any defect in the engine. It is true that the complainant has paid Rs.4,347/- but the complainant alleged that same been paid towards sale price of engine oil which was not covered under the warranty. Thereafter, not a single document has been filed by the complainant to show the defect in the vehicle time to time. There is only another job card available from Oriken Global Automobiles but that is not the authorized dealer as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11.    Be that as it may, there is no frequent visit of the vehicle to any service centre so as to draw adverse inference of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Apart from this the complainant has not filed any expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

12.    In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and as such failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

13.    The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

            Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.