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

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  factual matrix leading to the case of the  complainant is that  the complainant, in order to maintain  his livelihood, purchased a Mahindra Tourister 15 W bearing Regd.No.OR-19B-7355. It is alleged inter-alia that the complainant after purchase of the vehicle  and during warranty period got  damaged to the vehicle. So, he contacted   OP No1 for repairing  under instruction of OP No.2 to 4 because the complainant had availed loan of  Rs.5,40,000/- on 09.05.2005 from OP No.2 to 4 to purchase same. It is further alleged that the vehicle went  out of order under  repeated  occasions and finally he alleged   against the OP to take the vehicle and replace  the vehicle. But OP No.2 to 4 did not receive same, for which the complaint was filed.    

4.                   The  OP No.2  to 4  were set-exparte.

5.               OP No.1 filed written version stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part. They submitted that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.5,40,000/-  from the OP. But after sanction of the loan, the loan agreement  was executed and as per the agreement the loanee has to pay the regular installment but there is outstanding against the complainant. After sanction of loan amount, loan agreement was executed  and the complainant was to pay the regular installment. On the date of application, there is outstanding of   Rs.80,000/- as over due charges.  It is also asserted  the  bank has no any action to other. Be that as it may, they have no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ The opp.party No.1 to 4 are directed  to replace the engine of the vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-19B-7355 within a month from the date of receipt of this order.

                                There is no order as to payment of compensation and costs.”

7.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that    learned District Forum failed to appreciate the materials on record. According to him the complainant has  brought the vehicle  to OP No.1 for repairing of the same. He submitted  certain documents. However, learned District  Forum without analyzing  the fact  and law disposed of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  they have already repaired the vehicle    to the upmost satisfaction of the complainant. He submits that as per Section-40  of the Act, no interest  or  to pay any compensation. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

 9.                       It is admitted fact that   the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 to 4 and OP No.1 was  the repairer of the vehicle. Admittedly the vehicle get defect during warranty period and the vehicle has been repaired by the OP as per the letter  dtd.17.03.2006. It appears that  the case was filed on 01.03.2006 but thereafter the vehicle has been repaired by the OP. Since, defect has been removed, we do not find any reason to award any compensation or cost

10.            In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hereby set-aside the impugned order  and allowed the appeal. 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.