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

2.      Captioned appeal is filed under Section 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 purchased a Truck from opposite party no.2, dealer of opposite party no.1 as per advice of opposite party no.3 on being financed by opposite party no.4-Bank of India, Balasore on 3.11.2010. It is alleged inter alia that the vehicle was in running condition and within the warranty period the vehicle has gone defective on 9.10.2011 and repaired by opposite party no.2 at the cost of Rs.2727/-. Again within 15 to 20 days thereafter, the vehicle of the complainant gone defective with complete damage of its engine. The opposite party no.2 repaired the same and restored the vehicle to the complainant. Thereafter, the vehicle gone totally damaged and shifted to showroom of O.P.No.3 for repairs and the same is now under the custody of O.P.No.3. Thereafter the complainant had a regular visit to garage of O.P.No.3 in order go get back his vehicle in a proper running condition, but the O.P.No.3 failed to set right the same. Thereafter, the complainant sent  Advocate Notice to O.Ps with demand of replacement of defective Engine and the same went unheard and unresponded which rendered serious mental agony with financial loss to the complainant. On being advised, the complainant filed a complaint against the O.Ps.

4.      The Opposite Party admitted to have financed the complainant for the vehicle. It is also averred that on examination, the mechanic found that the vehicle was damaged due to use of Kerosene Oil as fuel instead of Diesel, resultantly, vehicle had gone defective frequently. It is further averred that the complainant has suppressed the material fact.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“ Having regards to our judgment reflected above the complaint is allowed with directons to O.Ps 1 to 3 to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.1 Lakh ( Rupees One Lakh) towards compensation within one month from the date of communication of this order.

  Delay in any manner shall carry Rs. 300/- per day payable by the O.Ps No.1 to 3 to complainant.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned the District Forum committed  error by not going through the written version of the opposite parties. According to him the complainant sustained loss and damage in vehicle because of use of Kerosene Oil instead of use of Diesel. Moreover, he submitted that the complainant did not inform the opposite parties about use of such Kerosene Oil in the vehicle and as such suppressed the material fact. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered  the submissions and went through the record of District Forum and the impugned order, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from the opposite party no.2 on 3.11.2010, but due to frequent defect in the vehicle, the complainant had approached the opposite party time and again. Use of Kerosene Oil instead of Diesel in the vehicle by the Complainant as stated by the learned counsel  for the appellant is prohibitive.  However, it was used and such fact of use of Kerosene Oil has not been denied by the complainant. The fact remained proved.

8.      In the instant case, there is a plea by the learned counsel for the appellant that Kerosene Oil has been used instead of Diesel in the  vehicle in question. In view of the fact that even though the opposite parties have attended the repairing work of the vehicle in question, but the use of Kerosene Oil cannot be lost sight of.

9.      In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that fault does not lie on the opposite party because the vehicle has been returned to complainant as per submission of complainant. On the other hand, the complainant demanded that the vehicle was not repaired and remained with the custody of opposite parties no. 2 and 3 but no proof is filed by the complainant for such assertion.  

10.    In view of above discussion, there is no expert committee report to show that the vehicle has been totally damaged.

11.    Therefore, we are of the view that learned District Forum having  not discussed the case in detail under law,  we set aside the same.

The appeal is allowed. No cost.

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.