Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased a TVS Scotty Pep Plus on payment of consideration of Rs.36,650/- from OP No.1. It is alleged inter alia that the vehicle was given trouble with regard to the engine and it was reported to OP No.1. For the first, three free services were given by OP No.1 to the complainant. It is alleged that on 23.6.2013 while the daughter of the complainant was travelling with the vehicle near Gandhi Park in front of Ashok Mandap, Rayagada the vehicle started emerging flames due to short circuit and the vehicle caught fire. However, local people saved the daughter of the complainant. The matter was reported to OP No.1 but no step was taken. The matter was also informed to the local police. Finding no other way, the complaint was filed claiming the price of the vehicle with compensation and cost.

4.      OP No. 1 did not file any written version but OP Nos. 2 an 3 filed written version stating that the complainant has availed free service as per the norms and at no point of time, he has complained about any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Further, it is averred that with full satisfaction of the complainant, the vehicle was repaired while giving services. Therefore, the is no deficiency in service on their part.

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

“xxx   xxx   xxx

The OP No. 1, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.36,650/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to mitigate the legal expenses.

In the result, the case is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to make the payment of the vehicle along with said compensation and cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they are liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the entire awarded amount.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the written venison filed with proper perspectives. According to him the vehicle was given free service but the complaint was filed with allegation of manufacturing defect after four years of purchase. He also submitted that the defect has not been pointed out before them so as to conclude that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect. He also submits that there is two years warranty for the vehicle and the same has already been passed away so as to find out the replacement of vehicle on the ground of manufacturing defect or the parts thereof. He also submitted that the learned District Forum has failed to apply judicial mind to the facts and law. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the vehicle after purchase has been running smoothly but from time to time, it was being repaired by OP No.1. Since the vehicle caught fire either by short circuit or any other reasons, there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Therefore, he submitted that the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order rightly and it should be confirmed.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      It is admitted fact that the vehicle Scotty was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 and admittedly, for the first time the major defect occurred four years after the purchase. It is admitted that free service was given to the vehicle. The warranty period was admittedly for two years. When the vehicle was approached for repairing, it was done and if within warranty period the major problem arose the same cannot be said as manufacturing defect because the vehicle was caught fire beyond the warranty period. However, after the warranty period over the complainant cannot claim for replacement of parts or vehicle. The learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts and law involved in this case. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

10.    The appeal stands 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.