Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

          This  is  a  case  filed  by the  complainant U/s. 12 of  Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.       The  case of the  complainant is  that opp.party No.1  is the  authorised  dealer, service  provider  to the  consumer  and opp.party No.3 is  the manufacturer of the  motor  cycle   purchased by the  complainant. The  complainant has  purchased a  Dream Yuga (CB110D) model,21D type  red colour, frame number ME4JC583CD8234058 and engine number JC58E81232495 vide  retail invoice number 13IN01586/dated 05.08.2013  from the  authorised  dealer Shuv Laxmi Motors  (Laxmi Honda), Shankar Cinema Road,Angul  the  respondent number No.1. The  said  motor  cycle is  having  Regd. No. OD-17-2199.Soon  after  the  first service  there was leakage  of  engine oil  from  its  head , gears were not  functioning  properly  and there was  excessive  heating of the  engine .The  complainant  faced  problem  from  the  date of  purchase. During the  second and third  servicing  , the  complainant  has intimated about  the  said  problem  to the  service  point of opp.party No.2  situated at  Boudh  but  no action  was taken by the  opp.parties  to  rectify  such defect. The  aforesaid  defects were  brought to the   notice of opp.party  No.1  who  had  sent   an expert  to rectify  the defects  found   with  the  motor  cycle but  he   could  not  rectify  the  same. The  complainant  took  his  motor  cycle  for  fourth  servicing  to opp.party No.1, who  also  could not  rectify  the defect. Thereafter the complainant  intimated  about  the  problems  faced  by  him to the  opp.parties  through  letters and  reminders  which  were returned  unserved. At last the  complainant  served  a pleader notice to  opp.party No.1  on 30.05.2014  through  Regd. Post with A.D  but   he  avoided  to receive the  same, as a  result   of  which the  said  notice  returned to the   pleader of the  complainant. The  complainant  had  also  put-fourth  his  grievance  before opp.party No.3  but  no avail. Hence  this  case.

3.       Notice was  issued  to  opp.party No.2 &  3  through Regd. Post and  opp.party  No.1  by this  office. The  notice  issued to opp.party No.1  has been received on 16.07.2014  .The   notice issued to opp.party No.2  has been received  by the  address as appears from  the A.D available  in the  case record. The  notice  issued to opp.party No.3   through  Regd. Post with A.D on 14.07.2014 in correct address  did not  return   to this  office. A.D is also  not   back. After expiry  the  statutory period  of  thirty days , it is  deemed that the  notice has been duly served  on opp.party No.3. 

4.        Opp.party No.1 & 3  filed  a  joint  show cause, where  as opp.party No.2  has filed separate  show cause.

          The  case of the opp.party 1 & 3   is that  opp.party No.1  is the  authorised  dealer/ agent  of opp.party No.3 and   paragraph  1 & 2 of the  complaint petition is  admitted. The  complainant  has  never  put forth his  grievance  before  the opp.party No.1 & 3 at any point of  time. The  complainant has  not  co-operated with  the  mechanic  of the  company  or the  authorised  dealer  for  providing  satisfactory  service. The opp.party No.1 & 3  has  no knowledge about  the  problems  and  intimation  to opp.party No.2  as  alleged in  paragraph-4 of the  complaint petition. All  the allegations  made in paragraph- 5 & 6  of the  complaint petition are  false. The opp.party No.1  has taken utmost  care  in  providing  service  to the  complainant, even by  attending  the  door step of the  complainant. On the  other hand  the  complainant  di not  co-operate . The  complainant has  not  maintained  the  motor  cycle  in  good  conditions after he  purchased He has not  followed the  instructions given to him  by the  owner  manual. All the  services  were  given to the  complainant  free of   cost  with  full satisfaction of the  complainant. On 26.10.2013    the  complainant  raised  his  complaint  regarding   the defect in his  vehicle before  opp.party No.3  and  in  due course it  was  intimated to opp.party No.1  for  providing  service to the  complainant. In result   the opp.party No.1  had sent   one expert mechanic  on behalf of the company  to Athamallik at the  door  step of the  complainant  on 23.11.2014 .Due  service  was  provided   to the  complainant  and he was  advised  to send   the  vehicle   to the opp.party No.1  for  better service. The  same  fact  was  intimated  to the  complainant on 04.03.2014  and  04.07.2014 through registered post . The  complainant  was also  advised  by  opp.party  No.2  to maintain  the  vehicle  properly . The   complainant   has  not  maintained  his  vehicle  properly and  not   produced  his   motor  cycle  before the opp.party No.1  at Angul. There  is  no  deficiency  in service on  behalf  of the opp.party No.1 & 3   and they   are ready to  provide   necessary  service if  required  on  production of  the  motor  cycle  at the service centre  situated at Angul. The  complainant  avoided  to  produce his  vehicle  before  opp.party No.1 & 3 . The  complainant  did  not  comply  to the   request of opp.party  No.1  which  were  sent  to him  through Regd. Post.

          The  case   of  opp.party No.2  is that the   contents   of  the  paragraph-1  is  admitted  by opp.party No.2  .The  allegations  made in  paragraph- 2 is  denied  by  the opp.party  No.2  and the opp.party No.2 is  not  aware of the allegations  made in paragraph- 3,4,5 &  other  paragraphs  of the  complaint petition. The opp.party No.2  is  no way   liable  for the  allegations made by the  complainant  in  his  complaint petition.  

5.       The  complaint petition  filed  by the  complainant is  supported  with affidavit. No evidence  was led by  the  complainant. He has filed the  photo copy  of the Tax Invoice and the  undelivered  pleader notice issued in the  address of opp.party No.1 , by  his  advocate. No  other document  has been  filed  by  him. However, from the  complaint petition it  transpires  that the  complainant  has  purchased  a  motor cycle bearing Regd. No. OD-17-2199 from  the opp.party No.1  on payment of  consideration. It is  admitted by the opp.parties in  their  written version. The  photo copy of the   Tax Invoice dtd. 29.03.2004   also  shows  that the  complainant  has  purchased  the  motor cycle on payment of Rs. 51,649.00  to  opp.party  No.1. It is  alleged  at  paragraph- 3  of  the  complaint petition that  there  was leakage  of  engine oil  from the  head, malfunctioning  of  gear and  excessive heating of  the  engine of the  motor  cycle  purchased  by  the  complainant, for  which  the  complainant has  sent  letters  and reminders  to the opp.parties and   their  authorised  persons. The  complainant  has  not filed the  copy of  such  letter  or  any  material  to prove  that   he has  despatched  repeated  letters and  reminders  to the  opp.parties. On  the  other  hand the opp.party  No.1  has filed  the  photo  copy  of   two letters  which were  addressed to the  complainant  on 04.03.2014 and  04.07.2014  through  regd. Post with  A.D, in which  the  complainant was required  to produce  his  vehicle  before  the opp.party No.1 for  necessary   repairing, if required. Absolutely  there  is no materials  before   this Forum  that the  complainant  has  produced his  vehicle  before opp.party No.1  to rectify  the defects  if  any .

          In the  written version  filed  by the opp.party No.1 & 3   they have  admitted  that on 26.10.2013  a  complaint  was received from the complainant  and  thereafter on 23.11.2014   a  mechanic  of   opp.party No.1  was  sent  to the  house of the  complainant  situated at  Athmallik  and  service  was provided  to the  complainant. At paragraph- 7 of the   show cause   the opp.party No.1 & 3  have  specifically mentioned  that the  complainant was advised  to  produce the  vehicle  before the opp.party No.1. The  complaint  at paragraph-5  of  his  complaint  petition  has mentioned that  one  expert  mechanic  was sent  to Athamallik   for rectification of the  defect and  despite the repair  made by the  said  mechanic   the  motor cycle   continued   with the  defect. So from the materials  on  record, it is  clear that  the opp.party No.1  &  2   have taken  steps  by sending  an expert  mechanic  to the  house  of the  complainant  situated at Athamallik  , although  the  authorised  centre  of  opp.party No.1  exist at Angul.

        On the  other hand the  complainant  failed  to produce  any materials  before  this  Forum   that  there  is  deficiency in service  by the opp.parties. The  complaint  failed  to prove that there  is  deficiency in service  provided by the opp.parties. On the  other hand the  complainant  has  not  produced the vehicle  before the opp.party No.1  at Angul  for rectification of the  defect  if  any in the   motor  cycle.  

6.       Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

          The  case  be   and the  same  is  dismissed  on  contest.