BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28^th DAY OF JULY 2023

ORDER

SMT. K.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP’s:-

a) To exchange the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04 AC-4536 with new vehicle of the same specification.

b) To pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony, huge financial loss, harassment from OP’s.

c) To pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of earning of the complainant during 17 months.

d) To pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on compensation amount towards deficiency of service by delivering defective vehicle to the complainant.

e) To pay sum of Rs.25,000/- to cost of proceedings and such other reliefs.

f) To direct OP No.4 to return the vehicle (TATA Ace) bearing registration No.KA-04 AC-4536 to the complainant immediately and not to sell the same till the disposal of the above complaint, or in the alternative.

g) To direct OP to issue clearance letter of the said loan, if the OP No.4 sold the vehicle bearing No.KA-04 AC-4536 before the disposal of above case.

h) To award additional compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as the OP No.4 has seized the vehicle of the complainant in his absence, during the pendency of above complaint and caused mental agony.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant is a fruits and vegetable seller, engaged in supply of bulk order throughout Bangalore and surrounding areas. With an intention to supply bulk order of fruits and vegetable, complainant booked a TATA ACE gold (Diesel BS-6)  mini truck by making down payment of Rs.51,670/- on 15.10.2020 with OP No.4 for that OP No.4 has issued receipt. As per the procedure and formalities, the HDFC ERGO has issued certificate cum policy on 16.10.2020. OP No.3 being vehicle dealer, delivered TATA ACE gold (Diesel BS-6) bearing registration No.KA-04 AC-4536 to the complainant on 22.10.2020. The same has been registered before RTO Bangalore North. The said TATA ACE Gold is manufactured by OP No.1 & OP No.2 is the customer centre of OP No.1, which is responsible for subsequent events of commercial vehicles. OP No.4 has sanctioned balance amount as loan of Rs.5,75,000/- for the period of 4 years, with EMI of Rs.11,750/- per month. Complainant paid the EMI regularly for the initial 5 months, when he was earning some amount during that period. But later he found serious manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complainant could not use the same after 5 months after its purchase and unable to pay EMI regularly.

3. Complainant further stated that though the vehicle is brand new one, performance of vehicle was totally worst and just after 1 month of its purchase the problem started in the vehicle. Till 500 km of its run, there was no problem in the vehicle, later on frequent problems started which are as follows:-

a) As per other specification mentioned in the service book, the vehicle can pull up to 850 kg luggage, but the said vehicle was not even pulling 400-450 kg’s, which is totally false assurance given by the company. Complainant stated that the vehicle has no load bearing capacity as promised.

b) The vehicle supplied by OP’s was not at all pulling the luggage of 400-450 kg’s in ghat sections. So there is no pulling capacity.

c) Just after 4 to 5 months of its purchase, complainant started to face problems in the vehicle, he learnt that it was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

d) First time the complainant started to face the problem on 05.11.2020 which is after 500 kms of its run, in just 15 days of its purchase. On 24.11.2020 (after 1100 km of its run) after 1 month.

e) As there was no option for complainant, left the vehicle for service probably on 07.12.2020, 21.01.2021 and 09.02.2021 on Peenya Service Centre of Aravind Motors, who is OP No.3 in this case. Complainant stated that the said service centre simply changed engine oil and returned vehicle, instead of checking the problem and repair the same. Generally, the engine oil should be changed only after 10,000/- km of its run as mentioned in its operation service book. It clearly shows that service person of Aravind Motors have also failed to understand the actual problem in the said vehicle.

4. Complainant left the vehicle for service at Peenya Service Centre for 3 times and Dodaballapura service centre for 2 times, within the gap of 4 months of its purchase, due to the vehicle got severe technical problem, but still the problem was not solved and rectified. Complainant got frustrated with the vehicle and could not even earn his livelihood by using such defective vehicle. Complainant informed the same to its dealer and company several times and service centre over phone, it was well known during its visit for a service. Therefore complainant requested OP’s to exchange the vehicle with new one as the said vehicle is not working to the satisfaction of complainant and not working as per the specifications of TATA Motors. The complainant stated that he is ready to demonstrate the same before Hon’ble commission as it is not pulling 500 kg weight in upper road, though the maximum permissible FAW is 860kg & permissible RAW is 880kg as mentioned in the operators service book, which is totally false assurance, irresponsible act and defrauding the complainant as well as other public by selling such a defective vehicle to its customers without caring for its performances.

5. It is pertinent to note that complainant went to Dodballapur service centre of Aravind Motors on 18.02.2022 and requested for exchange of same with new vehicle. In fact, they have agreed for the same and after waiting for 4 hours, have informed the complainant to drop the vehicle at Peenya service centre of Aravind Motors. When the complainant come to Peenya service centre, after this stage the staff of Aravind Motors have refused to drop the vehicle at the premises, shouted at complainant to take back his vehicle without even checking the problem in the vehicle. Such a hasty attitude of  staff of Aravind Motors caused hurt to the complainant very badly.

6. Complainant further stated that when the purchase of the said vehicle was not at all good and satisfactory, complainant could not continue his fruits and vegetable transport business and earn his livelihood by defective vehicle. Under such circumstances complainant alleged that he was not able to repay the loan due’s in time when the OP have delivered defective vehicle to the complainant, but OP No.4 sent legal notices on 03.02.2022 and 09.02.2022 calling upon the complainant to repay the loan due’s which is totally fictitious and against to principles of natural justice.

7. When the vehicle delivered by OP’s is totally defective one, difficult for him to earn his livelihood and to repay the loan due’s. Just after 4,828 km of its run, complainant has parked his vehicle in his shed and going for a job as driver in lorry. The vehicle meter showing loan of 4,828 km is also produced by complainant. When there is deficiency of service, irresponsibility, negligence act and defrauding the complainant by OP’s, complainant opined that OP’s should be panalized under Consumer Protection Act. Unless and until technical problem in the vehicle is rectified, OP’s cannot blame with regard to the repayment for loan due’s when there is fault from other side. Therefore complainant claimed for compensation from OP’s for delivering defective vehicle.

8. In order to get relief, complainant filed this case before this commission on 20.05.2022 and the OP’s have filed their versions. Even complainant has adduced his evidence and got the documents marked. Subsequently OP’s also have adduced their evidence. During the pendency of the complaint before this commission, OP No.4 have rushed to the address of complainant when he was not at home, illegally acted and seized vehicle of the complainant, which caused mental trauma to the complainant. Therefore complainant filed IA under order 39 rule (1)&(2) of Civil Procedure Code to restrain the OP from selling or transferring or changing the name of vehicle during the pendency of complaint. Hence complainant sought main claims from OP’s referred supra and pray for the relief.

 9. In the notice sent to OP’s OP No.1 to 4 represented through its counsel, filed their statement of objections. OP No.3 has filed version after the lapse of 45 days from the date of their appearance i.e. on 01.07.2022. In view of the decision of the constitution bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this commission has no power to receive belated version after expiry of 45 days. Hence, the version of OP No.3 is not taken for consideration.

10. In the statement of objection, OP No.1 and 2 stated that both are same entity and there is no conflict of interest between OP No.1 & 2. Hence version is jointly filed by OP No.1 and 2. OP No.1 & 2 (herein after OP No.1) stated that the vehicle manufactured by them has passed through stringent quality checks and road trials both the actual commercial production. The vehicle are marketed only after being proved by the Automatic Research Association of India and thoroughly inspected for control system, quality checks and test drives before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorized dealers appointed on a principal to principal basis for sale of vehicle. OP No.1 denied the allegations of complainant with regard to the manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and also taken contention that in the absence of a expert report, complainant fails to prove the defect in the vehicle. OP No.1 & 2 admitted that complainant has purchased the vehicle on around 31.07.2020 from OP No.3 and the said vehicle in question has covered around 4,780 km till 11.09.2021. OP No.1 taken stand that it manifests the vehicle in question within the period of 13 months, covered 368 km approximately per month. It proves that delivered vehicle is in absolute road worthy condition and the observations recorded by service advisor in job cards are  minor and running repairs which were required to be corrected and those are due to regular, continuous, extensive and fault usage of the said vehicle. OP has been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievances represented by the complainant under the warranty policy as and when required.

11. Further OP No.1 contends that the transaction of the sale of the vehicle transported between the complainant and dealer who is OP No.3 here. It is further submitted that in usual course of transaction dealers expects the various features and aspects such as engine power, milage to the vehicle to the customers as per the usual business tracks. Similarly complainant had full knowledge about the vehicle but the final decision to purchase the vehicle was made by the complainant himself. Therefore OP No.1 taken stand that there was no problem with the vehicle at the time of delivery and that the complainant taken delivery only after proper inspection and satisfaction and the same ought to have acknowledged by him in the delivery acknowledgement note. Therefore OP No.1 strictly denied there is a lapse or false assurance or irresponsible act by OP No.1 & 2. OP No.1 stated in its version that the complainant brought the vehicle to M/s Aravind Motors (service centre) on or around 16.12.2020 at 1546 km with complainant of a poor pickup, wherein the issue was rectified by service regeneration and change of oil and oil filter. Hence the allegation of complainant that vehicle started for problem within 500 km/15 days or 1100 km/1month of usage is completely fabricated.

12. OP further stated that the observation recorded by the service adviser on the job cards and steps taken of resolution of complainant, with clearly establish that whatever complaint raised by the complainant were minor repairs and recommended services which were rectified to the complete satisfaction of the complainant. The purported complaint of low pick up has been rectified through necessary repairs affected by way of service and after servicing complaint, delivery of his vehicle being satisfied with repairs. Complainant did not raised any complaint related to the pick up or load bearing or pulling capacity in the sub- sequential date’s of servicing nor it observed by the service centre. On the last date of servicing i.e on 09.11.2021 at 4780 km, wherein no complaint on pickup or pulling capacity was made by the complainant by the service centre. It indicates that he is satisfied with the repairs in wide sign on the subsequent date 09.11.2021 while taking the delivery of his vehicle after repairs. Since the complainant has failed to establish the allegations made against OP No.1, with regard to the manufacturing defect with vehicle and the huge financial loss suffered by him due to the act of OP No.1 and 2 by supplying defective vehicle. Hence OP No.1 and 2 prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

13. In the statement of objection OP No.4 denies the allegation of complainant and stated complaint has willfully made false allegation with a malafide intention of securing unlawful claims and asking for the liability of repayment of outstanding loan amount. OP No.4 contends that complainant is not a consumer within definition under consumer protection act 2019. Complainant has assured the service from OP No.4 for carrying out commercial purpose which debars him from filing the present case. OP No.4 contends that the complainant had taken the loan from OP No.4 and has no such other relief between the paries, were of principal and borrower or loaner and loanee and not as consumer and service provider as such. Hence this complaint is not maintainable under the law and liable to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency of service.

14. OP No.4 admitted that complainant had approached OP No.4 requesting for credit facility for the purchase of commercial vehicle bearing register No.KA-04-AC-4536 for transporting fruits and vegetables. Considering his request OP No.4 sanctioned Rs.5,74,398/-. For that complainant had agreed to pay Rs.11,750/- towards EMI to repay the loan amount for 4 years. Complainant had submitted loan application on 09.10.2020. OP No.4 further stated that complainant had executed the loan cum hypothecation agreement on 16.10.2020 wide bearing No.5003561449. After going through and understanding the terms and conditions stipulated in the form, complainant had obtained said loan facility from OP No.4 for doing commercial business.

15. OP No.4 contends that complainant is chronic defaulter in payment of installments to OP No.4 which clearly amounts to breach of terms and conditions stipulated under the above said loan agreement. It also contends that OP was constrained to exercise the rights provided under the agreement to demand for the payment of outstanding loan if in case of violation of terms and conditions. It stated that in spite of the outstanding dues complainant had not turned up to pay the due amount. The complainant had defaulted in the payment of installment under the hypothecation agreement and the very loan is clear that, in the case of hypothecation till the last installment is paid, financier is the owner of the vehicle and hire purchaser is just a registered owner. It also stated that OP No.4 is well empower to seize and dispose the vehicle when the complainant has failed to pay the due amount. OP No.4 contends that complainant is chronic defaulter and unable to repay the loan amount as he agreed upon and to avoid the consequences, complainant has filed this complaint with malafide intention. Hence OP No.4 prays this commission to dismiss the complaint with cost.

16. After the version of OP’s the case has been set down to adduce affidavit evidence of complainant and OP’s. Accordingly complainant has adduced affidavit evidence with 10 documents which are marked as Document No.1 to Document No.10, is reiterated as stated in the complaint. One B. Govindarajan, customer support manager of OP No.1 and 2 has filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1&2, certificate U/S 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act and also filed 9 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.9. One Shivakumar hosmat, Zonal legal officer for OP No.4 has filed affidavit evidence along with one document which are marked as R10. OP No.4 also filed 3 documents at the time of version which are referred as Document No.11 to 13. Heard arguments of complainant and OP No.1, 2 and 4, OP No.3 was absent on the date of argument. Hence argument of OP No.3 is taken as nil. We perused the materials on record.

17. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant has proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs?

iii) What order?

18. Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1:- In negative

ii) Point No.2:- In negative

iii) Point No.3:- as per final order.

                      REASONS

19. Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that complainant has booked a TATA Ace Gold (diesel BS6) mini truck by making down payment of Rs.51,670/- on 15.10.2020 with OP No.3. For which OP No.3 has issued receipt dated 09.10.2020 and 15.10.2020, which are at Doc.1 & Doc.2. The said amount has received by OP No.1 and OP No.1 also issued computer generated receipt on 15.10.2020 which is at Doc.3. Then OP No.3 being a vehicle dealer delivered TATA Ace Gold (diesel BS6) bearing registration No. KA-04 AC-4536 to the complainant on 22.10.2020 same has been registered before RTO Bangalore North, which is at Doc.5. The vehicle got issued with HDFC Ergo on 16.10.2020, which is at Doc.4. The above said facts are not disputed by OP’s. To purchase the said vehicle, complainant has availed loan amount of Rs.5,75,000/- payable in EMI’s of Rs.11,750/- per month from OP No.4. Complainant stated that he has paid the EMI’s regularly in the initial 4 to 5 months when his earning was good during that time. Subsequently complainant observed serious manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complainant could not use the same and paid EMI’s in regular basis as he alleged.

20. OP No.1, 2 & 4 contended that complainant filed this complaint with malafide intention and also they taken stand that complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act 2019. OP’s even referred few judgments with regard to the definition of Consumer. Upon going through, in our considered view, when the complainant has purchased the said vehicle by paying consideration and he also availed loan from OP No.4 to pay the entire amount towards the vehicle. Hence OP No.1&2 being manufacturers of the vehicle OP No.4 is financier by entering into the loan cum hypothecation agreement bearing loan No.5002265098 have became manufacturer and service provider respectively. The complainant has purchased the vehicle as he stated in the complaint that too for his livelihood. Though the vehicle itself is commercial vehicle, complainant purchased the vehicle for transporting vegetables and fruits to the vendors. Even though he is using it for business purpose, owning single vehicle, runs for his livelihood cannot be considered as commercial purpose. Hence complainant is very much comes under the pur-view of definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

21. OP No.1&2 being manufacturers have supplied vehicle and same has manufacturing defect as alleged by complainant. Hence complainant is a Consumer under Sec 2 (7) (i). Since the consumer has borrowed loan from OP No.4 by taking loan. Hence complainant becomes Consumer of OP No.4 under Sec 2 (7) (ii). As per the above discussion complainant is a Consumer and the case can be disposed by passing order on merits.

22. It is pertinent to note that complainant has alleged that the serious manufacturing defect in the said vehicle, caused him heavy financial loss and also he was unable to repay the loan amount to OP No.4. Here we categorically discussed the issues raised by complainant with regard to the vehicle as follows:-

a) Whether complainant has proves the manufacturing defect in the said TATA Ace Gold (diesel BS6) as he alleged in the complaint.

b) Whether OP No.4 proves that the complainant has filed this complaint to avoid the repayment as he contended?

23. a) As per the specification mentioned in operator service book of OP No.1 with regard to the TATA Ace Gold (diesel BS6) vehicle and also complainant alleged in his complaint that the said vehicle has the capacity of pulling up to 850 Kg luggage, maximum permissible Front Axle Weight (FAW) upto 860, maximum permissible Rare Axle Weight (RAW) is 880 but the said vehicle was not even pulling 400 to 450 Kg’s which amounts to false assurance by OP No.1 while purchasing the vehicle. But as per the complainant the said vehicle has no load bearing capacity and also has no pulling capacity. Complainant stated the vehicle was at a problem on 05.11.2020 which is after 500 Km of its run in just 15 days of its purchase, i.e. on 24.11.2020 after 1 month of its purchase the ran up to 1100 km of its run. He also stated that he left the vehicle for the service with OP No.3. On perusal of documents, complainant left the vehilce on 16.12.2020, mentioned poor pickup in jobcard. On 03.02.2021, 09.11.2021 and 16.11.2022 complaint about fuel low average, milage. He also alleged that instead of checking the problem and repairing the same, OP No.3 simply changed the engine oil and returned the vehicle to the complainant, which actually should be changed after 10,000 Km of its run as mentioned in the operator service book. Therefore, he alleged that OP No.3 executive failed to understand the actual problem of the said vehicle, they returned the vehicle with changing the engine oil. On perusal of the Doc.8 which is only document produced by complainant with regard to the service as he stated stated the service done on different dates. The said Doc.8 is tax invoice issued by authorized service station of TATA Motors that is MM Motors of Gowri Bidanur road, Doddaballapur. As it showed on 09.12.2020 it clearly mentions that the said vehicle has run up to 1,151 Km and no other service serial No.2 to 5 has not charged due to warranty. They only charged for the change of engine oil of Rs.264 as per the Doc.8 complainant has not produced any service job cards as he stated in the complaint that he has got serviced the vehicle for 3 to 4 times that OP No.3 service station but has produced 1 Document which discloses service under warranty, since the vehicle got warranty of 2 years or 70000kms whichever is early as per document produced by OP No.1&2.  OP No.1 has produced jobcards on different dates, at the same time as we observed that complainant has not complained about pulling capacity after 16.12.2020 and not  produced iota of evidence with regard to the pulling capacity and load bearing capacity of the vehicle by producing any expert opinion even after approaching this commission, complainant has not filed any application to seek permission to produce expert opinion before this commission which can hold the allegations and to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle. But complainant has not sought the same and proved his case. Hence in our considered view, complainant has failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the same has caused heavy financial loss to the complainant. In the absence of documents and expert opinion, it is difficult to analyze the intensity of problem and deficiency of service.

24. b) On perusal of the version filed by OP No.4 and also the documents produced, OP No.4 admittedly has sanctioned loan of Rs.5,28,000/- on request of the complainant, complainant had agreed to pay the said amount in Rs.11,750/- equated EMI’s for 53 months of Rs.11,750/-. Initially complainant has paid regular EMI’s towards the repayment of loan amount. Subsequently complainant become default in payment, as he admitted. When the complainant become chronic defaulter as he admitted in the complaint. OP No.4 has issued several notices with regard to the same. The crux of the matter in present case in hand is upon going through the Document No.12 produced by OP No.4 clearly discloses the invoices amount and overdue installments on the part of complainant and the amount received till the date i.e, till 13.06.2022. If in case complainant repaid the loan amount regularly is EMI’s will complete by the end of March 2025 but complainant did not do so. As per Doc.No.12 of OP No.4 complainant has entered into agreement with OP No.4 for the amount of contract value Rs.6,22,750/- out of that complainant has paid only Rs.1,17,500/- and due for Rs.2,23,250/- with overdue installment of Rs.1,05,750/- and net overdue interest of Rs.22,068/- as on 13.06.2022. Continuing to the next page of Doc.No.12 of OP No.4 has issued premature termination statement on 14.10.2022 discloses the contract value is for Rs.5,81,695/-. When the complainant failed to repay the loan amount in time, even though OP No.4 has reminded him by way of issuing notice one after the other, complainant did not repay his liability. By perusing  Doc.No.13 dated 09.02.2022 counsel for OP No.4 has issued legal notice to recall the termination of agreement bearing No. 5003561449 stating that OP No.4 is in possession to exercise its rights vested as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, terminates the said agreement and recall the entire outstanding amount in terms of the said loan agreement which becomes due and payable by the complainant i.e. of Rs.4,85,551/- to be paid within a period of 4 days from the date of receipt of the notice, if he fails to pay the same within the date, OP No.4 has a right to exercise other contractual right vested under the loan agreement i.e. to take possession of the vehicle as to the cost and consequences. Even after the receipt of the said notice complainant has not come forward to repay the loan amount and get relieve from the liability, subsequent to that complainant has filed this complaint after the receipt of this notice i.e, on 20.05.2022 shows the contention taken by the OP No.4 is justified.

25. After leading evidence on their side, OP No.4 seized the vehicle on 19.12.2022, complainant filed IA in that regard U/O 39 rule 1&2 of CPC to restrain the OP No.4 through selling/ transferring/ changing the name of TATA ACE Gold bearing No.KA-04 AC-4536 till the disposal of this complainant, IA was allowed. On 07.11.2022 OP No.4 issued another notice for termination of notice and intent to conduct arbitration by appointing sole arbitrator. Accordingly, though OP No.4 sent notice on 03.02.2022, 09.02.2022, stating that OP No.4 going to conduct arbitration proceedings with regard to the complainant’s vehicle, in between the proceedings of this commission, is unfair and unjust. More so OP No.4 has conducted arbitration at Mumbai against the said complaint and passed the arbitration Award dated 25.03.2023. Conducting arbitration at the place of OP No.4 i.e, at Mumbai found to be not fair on the part of complainant without giving an opportunity to complainant to defend his case. Complainant has filed interim application when the OP seized the said vehicle without the consent of the complainant, this commission has restrained OP from selling/transferring the name of TATA Ace Gold vehicle passed on the IA filed by complainant. An arbitration Award revealed that complainant is due of Rs.5,34,455/- as on 04.11.2022 selling the vehicle and for the satisfaction of the afore said awarded amount, to sell the said vehicle by way of Public auction with accordance of law if in case of failure no repayment by the complainant.

26. It is pertinent to note that complainant is chronic defaulter in repaying the amount for which he is liable, that is the main contention and also its proved by the documents. Hence OP No.4 is rightly taken the possession of the vehicle after several opportunities given to him and has proved the complainant is defaulter. Such being the case the entire responsibility lies on the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and also it caused delay in repaying the loan  and for his financial loss and financial inability to repay the loan amount. Hence as it discussed above, OP No.4 is being financier has right to collect the loan amount from the complainant.

27. From the above discussion complainant has failed to prove the allegations against OP No.1&2 pertaining to the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and also failed to prove that OP No.4 has caused deficiency of service by seizing the vehicle and liable to compensate the same. Hence we answer Point No.1 in negative.

28. Point No.2:- As we discussed above, the entire burden of proof lies on complainant to prove his case. In the absence of accurate defect in the vehicle to analyze the manufacturing defect and complainant failed to produce expert opinion/expert report, which is the only document to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle of the complainant, is failed to produce the same. In the absence of expert report, difficult to come to decision about the vehicle got manufacturing defect. In the summary proceedings of Consumer cases, it is very much essential document to prove the defect in the vehicle by producing expert opinion report. Without inspecting the vehicle by expert of mechanical or automobile field, cannot relay on the allegations of complainant. Even the complainant has not sought the commission to permit him to appoint the expert and to produce the expert opinion report in between the proceedings. Hence, complainant has not produced iota of evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and he also failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP No.4.

29. With regard to the OP No.4, complainant being chronic defaulter in repaying the loan and OP No.4 is rightly taken possession as per the terms and conditions of their agreement. Since they have entered into the loan and hypothecation agreement complainant has no evidence to prove the  allegation against OP No.4. OP No.3 being authorized service centre of OP No.1&2 as issued job cards now and then. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.2 in negative.

30. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-     

ORDER

i) Complaint against OP’s, is hereby dismissed. No cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th day of JULY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;