The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the TVS Motors Ltd., Being represented by its Authorized Signatory, Tamilnadu and O.P No.2 is Sita Commercials Pvt. Ltd., Being represented by its Proprietor-Cum-the Authorized Signatory, Balasore.

                    1. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant had purchased one TVS Mofed (XL Super HD) motor cycle from O.P No.2 on 16.07.2013 on payment of Rs.28,271/- bearing Regd. No.OD-01B-4554, where O.P No.2 handed over the warranty card, covering 5 years warranty from the date of purchase. Thereafter, the said vehicle was giving manifold problems including engine problem at regular intervals, thereby the Complainant brought the matter to the knowledge of O.P No.2 on good many occasions. But the defects were not rectified, though the O.P No.2 received undue amount from Complainant. Jobcards duly signed by the Complainant at the time of each serving are with the custody and possession of O.P No.2. Lastly, the Complainant on 04.07.2016 requested O.P No.2 for replacement/ repair of the said vehicle as per warranty conditions, but the O.P No.2 strongly refused to replace/ repair the same, for which the Complainant filed this case for necessary relief. Prayer for replacement of a new vehicle with the old one or cost of the same along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

                    2. Though sufficient opportunities were given to the O.Ps, neither they appeared in the case nor they filed their written version, so the O.Ps are set ex- parte.

                    3. Basing on averments of the Parties, the Complainant has filed certain documents in his support. Perused the same. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that in spite of several repair of the vehicle by the O.Ps No.2 on payment, when the problem did not solve, the Complainant is unable to use the vehicle. When on 04.07.2016, the O.P No.2 refused to repair the vehicle or replacement of the same, the Complainant was forced to file this case in this Forum. So, this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and they are jointly or severally liable to replace the vehicle with a new one or pay the price of the vehicle to the Complainant along with compensation and litigation cost as argued. The entire material placed by the Complainant, which remains uncontroverted as O.Ps are set ex-parte and did not contest in this case for the reason best known to them.      

                    4. On perusal of the case record, we, the Forum do not find any material for the O.Ps, for which we came to the conclusion that the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable to replace the vehicle with a new one or pay the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.28,271/- in lieu of the old one to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:- 

                                                     O R D E R

                        The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against the O.Ps with cost. The O.Ps are jointly or severally directed to replace the vehicle with a new one or pay the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.28,271/- in lieu of the old one along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this Order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.

                        Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 18th day of July, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.