Heard learned counsel for  both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case   of the complainant,  in nutshell is that the  complainant, in order to maintain his livelihood purchased  the  Bolero from OP No.3 vide Regd.No. OR-02-BN-5152 being financed by OP No.4. It is alleged inter-alia that immediately  after purchase  the  vehicle developed  defects in clutch plate, gear box, noise and wiring of tyre, low pick up and low mileage. It is alleged that the complainant  lodged   complaint   before Utkal Automobiles, Barbil  on 03.10.2011 and repaired   the vehicle on payment of Rs.6,873/-. The vehicle was repaired but again   the defects persisted in the vehicle. However, the complainant lodged complaint before the OP No.3  on 16.11.2011 and on 22.11.2011  by making payment Rs.652/- and Rs.2410/- respectively. Due to such shortcoming he could not earn money. Thereafter the complaint case was filed.

4.                  The OP  No.1 & 2   filed joint written version stating that  the complaint is not  maintainable and there is suppression of material facts.  According to OP No.1 & 2  there is defect in the vehicle  and the allegation  raised in the complaint are false and frivolous.  Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.  

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                    “ In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed exparte against  the Ops 1 to 3 and on contest as against the OP No.4. The OP No.3, being the authorized dealer, is hereby directed to repair/replace the defective parts of the vehicle in question, if any and thereafter give delivery of the vehicle to the complainant in good running condition after necessary repairs free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant with extended warranty of one year from the date of receipt of the vehicle in question by the complainant and this warranty be given by the OP No.2 being the Manufacture/Company. The Ops 1 & 2  are directed to supervise and provide  proper service in respect of repair of the vehicle. The OP No.4 is directed not to take any coercive action in respect of the vehicle in question till repair of the same. The Ops 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed  to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. The order be executed by the Ops as stated above within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the same against the Ops in accordance with law.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant  submitted that    learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. It is averred that  they have no fault  and as per agreement, he has no right  to seize the vehicle, if condition of the agreement violated. He drew our attention para-10 of the impugned order.  As the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the vehicle in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect, he is not  entitled for replacement of the said vehicle with a new one.  Therefore, he submitted to  set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.                   Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that learned District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order. So, he supports the impugned order.

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

9.                The most interesting observation of the learned District Forum  at para-10 of the impugned order which is as follows:-

                     “ The principle laid down in the aforesaid case by the Hon’ble Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the said principle is applicable to the present case as the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the vehicle in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect for which he is entitled for replacement of the said vehicle with a new one. However, taking a lenient view, the complainant is entitled to get relief in part. Hence, it is ordered:-

             “ In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed exparte against  the Ops 1 to 3 and on contest as against the OP No.4. The OP No.3, being the authorized dealer, is hereby directed to repair/replace the defective parts of the vehicle in question, if any and thereafter give delivery of the vehicle to the complainant in good running condition after necessary repairs free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant with extended warranty of one year from the date of receipt of the vehicle in question by the complainant and this warranty be given by the OP No.2 being the Manufacture/Company. The Ops 1 & 2  are directed to supervise and provide  proper service in respect of repair of the vehicle. The OP No.4 is directed not to take any coercive action in respect of the vehicle in question till repair of the same. The Ops 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed  to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. The order be executed by the Ops as stated above within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the same against the Ops in accordance with law.”

10.                 It is admitted fact that the complainant has incurred loan  from the present appellant to purchase the vehicle.  When the vehicle has no other document to show that there is manufacturing defect, the question of replacement of same does not arise but repairing  of vehicle  may continue.

11.              In view of aforesaid analysis,  we are of the view that OP No.4 who is  appellant before  us stated that the impugned  order  was passed  not to take coercive action against the  vehicle in question.  There is no defect in the conduct of the present appellant. The question  not to take coercive action is definitely unwarranted and illegal.

12.           When agreement is there between the parties they are bound by the  agreement. In  view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the operative portion of the  impugned order against the present appellant is only set-aside. But rest of the impugned order   will remain unaltered.

                The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                DFR be sent back forthwith.