1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Alto K10 VXI car registration No.PB-09T-7870, Engine No.7266074, Chasis No.468074 from Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, Kapurthala on 17.7.2013 in exchange offer. Beside giving the old car, the payment of the new car was arranged by raising car loan from Kapurthala branch of State Bank of India. The vehicle was duly insured before putting it on road. On 30.4.2014, the complainant went to village Ucha Pind on Phagwara Nakodar Road for performing duties of Micro Observer in the General Election to the Lok Sabha. The complainant parked the vehicle in the Government School of the village, where the election was to be conducted. After about half an hour of the parking of the vehicle, one of the security personnels told the complainant that he has noted that oil from the above said car of the complainant is leaking. Immediately, the nearest Maruti help line i.e Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, Phagwara was requested telephonically by the complainant, to depute their mechanic for repair of the car. According, they deputed two mechanics, who changed the filter and filled the engine oil in the school premises itself. The said mechanics told that the vehicle is now OK and the complainant traveled from there to Hoshiarpur and thereafter to his residence near Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala late in the night on the same date. On the next date i.e on 1.5.2014, the complainant went to village Jajjan Kalan near Goraya. At village Sang Dhesian, the complainant went to petrol pump to get filled the petrol tank. When the complainant just reached the petrol pump, suddenly the engine of the complainant's car stopped itself. The complainant tried his best to restart the engine, but all his efforts failed and thus he was left with no option but to call again the near Maruti people. Thus he again requested the Stan Pvt Ltd, Phagwara, who toed the car to their workshop at Phagwara. They told the complainant that the filter of the car has again leaked. As such the complainant requested them to carry on the repair subject to coverage under warranty clause or insurance coverage. The opposite parties repaired the car on 6.5.2014 and raised bill amounting to Rs.17,218/-. The complainant has paid the said bill under protest. Scrutiny of the above said bill shows that the engine filter has not been changed. There is inherent manufacturing defect in the car due to which it has stopped working as detailed above. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the car of the complainant with new one or to refund its price alongwith interest and further Rs.17218/- paid by him as repair charges. He has also claimed compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party, estoppel, not approaching the Forum with clean hands etc. They further pleaded that in fact, the vehicle was hit with some hard thing from Chamber portion i.e lower portion of body of the vehicle. Due to hit with some hard surface/stone, the engine potion was badly affected and damaged due to which the engine oil as well as other parts were badly effected. The same was got repaired later on and the same thing does not cover under warranty policy, as warranty does not cover if the vehicle is hit with anything and damaged accordingly. The complainant was required to claim the insurance for the said purpose. In fact the complainant is not a good driver and he is having a bad history in driving as in October 2013, the right side mirror (rear view) of the vehicle was damaged and got changed from Swani Motor Pvt Ltd, Jalandhar and similarly the vehicle was damaged on 24.7.2014 and got repaired from Swani Motors mentioned above. They further pleaded that in fact no vehicle was repaired on 30.4.2014. It is correct to the extent that the Stan Auto Workshop at Phagwara was intimated by the complainant through telephone regarding the problem being faced by the complainant in his vehicle, upon which the mechanic was sent at the spot, who after examining the vehicle and going through the condition of the vehicle, advised to take the same to the workshop, as there was damage from the lower part of the car i.e chamber/oil filter which was hit with some hard surface/stone. After examining the vehicle, it was revealed that due to damage in the chamber/oil filter the engine oil has leaked but inspite of that the complainant used/drove the said vehicle which caused further damage to the engine, resulting in engine damage. Accordingly, the vehicle was taken to workshop at Phagwara. It is wrong that the vehicle has leaked as alleged by the complainant, rather it was the fault of the complainant who drove the vehicle without engine oil after damaging the chamber/oil filter by hitting with some hard surface/stone from bottom of the car. It is also wrong that the complainant requested to carry on the repair subject to coverage under warranty clause or insurance coverage. In fact, the complainant was insisting to replace the vehicle under warranty clause inspite of the fact that his case/car does not fall under warranty clause, as it was not the manufacturing defect, but in fact, it was self caused damaged hitting with some hard surface/stone and it falls under insurance clause only. It was also advised to the complainant to get the vehicle repaired under insurance policy, but the complainant refused to the same, rather he insisted to change the vehicle under warranty clause, which is very much clear from the bill paid by the complainant upon which the complainant mentioned only warranty clause, which shows the intention of the complainant. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to C8 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.PA and Ex.PB alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to R3 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Counsel for the complainant contended that there is manufacturing defect in the car in question. He further contended that on 30.4.2014, he went to village Ucha Pind for performing duties of Micro Observer in the General Election and parked the vehicle in the Government School of the village and after about half an hour, one of the security person told the complainant that he has noted that oil has leaked from his car. He further contended that immediately Maruti help line i.e Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, Phagwara was requested telephonically to depute their mechanic for repair of the car and they deputed two mechanics, who changed the filter and filled the engine oil in the school premises itself and told him that the vehicle is now OK. He further contended that on the next date i.e on 1.5.2014, the complainant went to village Jajjan Kalan and on way the complainant went to petrol pump to get filled the petrol but when he just reached the petrol pump, the engine of the car stopped and did not restart. Counsel for the complainant further contended that he again requested the Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, Phagwara, who toed the car to their workshop at Phagwara and told him that the filter of the car has again leaked. He further contended that opposite parties repaired the car on 6.5.2014 and charged Rs.17,218/- illegally. He further contended that there is inherent manufactured defect in the car and opposite parties are liable to replace it. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant has intentionally not impleaded M/s Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, Phagwara. He further contended that in fact the car of the complainant was hit with some hard object or stone from beneath i.e lower portion of the body of the vehicle due to which the engine portion was badly damaged and engine oil leaked. He further contended that car was got repaired later on and accidental repair was not covered under warranty. He further contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the car nor the complainant has examined any expert witness to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in it. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for the parties. The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the car. In absence of any expert witness from the side of the complainant, it can not be said that there is manufacturing defect in the car. On the other hand, the opposite parties have tendered affidavit Ex.OP/B of Pardeep Singh, Service Advisor cum mechanic of Stan Auto Pvt Ltd, Kapurthala who has stated that he is working as service advisor cum mechanic and having experience of 13/14 years in motor mechanic especially in cars. It is further in his affidavit that he has gone through the bills of Rs.17,218/- and e-job card and from that he has found that vehicle must have been hit with some hard surface/stone and only then the head gasket cylinder can damage and due to which the engine oil leaked. It is further in his affidavit that this problem is not due to the engine filter because in case if the problem of leakage of engine oil is due to the filter in that event the vehicle can not move upto ten feet due to the pressure created by the engine and engine oil would leak immediately and the vehicle can not be moved. So from the affidavit of this expert witness produced by the opposite parties, it appears that car of the complainant is not having any manufacturing defect and same hit with some hard surface or object from beneath i.e lower portion of the body of the car due to which engine was damaged and oil leaked. This accidental damage is not covered under warranty. The complainant has purchased the car on 17.7.2013 and whereas according to him the filter of the car leaked on 1.5.2014. In case there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle then it would not have run during intervening period i.e from 17.7.2013 to 1.5.2014 or 30.4.2014. The car was towed away to workshop of M/s Stan Autos Pvt Ltd at Phagwara and was repaired there but the complainant has not made M/s Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, Phagwara as party in the present case. The complainant has even not impleaded the manufacturer of the car. There is no reliable evidence on record to come to the conclusion that there is any manufacturing defect in the car. From the evidence adduced by the opposite parties, it appears that the defect in the engine occurred due to hitting of some hard object or surface in the lower portion of body of the car which is not covered under warranty. So M/s Stan Autos Pvt Ltd, Phagwara who repaired the car rightly charged the repair charges of Rs.17,218/-.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.