Per Mr.Narendra Kawde – Hon’ble Member: 1. Both these appeals are filed challenging the order in Consumer Complaint bearing No.271/2001 (Mr.Yashwanth Damodar Mhatre V/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. and Seema Enterprises), passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane on 27th November, 2003. Appellants in Appeal No.04/500 and in Appeal No.A/04/515 are the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 in the original complaint filed before the District Forum. Both these appeals have been filed separately against the Respondent/original Complainant. 2. Admitted facts are that, the Respondent/original Complainant purchased Tempo manufactured by the Appellant in appeal No.A/04/500 – i.e. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Opponent No.1) sold and supplied to the Complainant through the Appellant in Appeal No.A/04/515 – Seema Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as “the Opponent No.2”). During the warranty period the technical fault in engine was attended to by the Opponent No.2. Again minor complaint in engine first occurred after running the vehicle of 2107 kilometers and reported on 29.07.2000 which was attended to promptly by the Appellant in Appeal No.515/2004 during the period of warranty. However, the second complaint was made by the Complainant after coverage of 12374 kilometers by the tempo which was beyond the warranty period. Yet, considering the seriousness of the complaint the Opponent No.1 fitted new engine to the vehicle at the workshop of the Opponent No.2 under the supervision of expert technician. However, not satisfied with the same the complainant had filed consumer complaint against the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service for not providing defect free tempo, claiming compensation of `3,08,000/- together with interest. 3. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint partly and directed the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to refund amount of `1,56,196/- to the Respondent/Complainant within a period of three months from the date of impugned order. Further, interest @15% effective from 6th July, 2000 till realization was also ordered to be paid on the amount of compensation, ancillary relief of `5,000/- was also directed to be paid. Aggrieved with the impugned order original Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 in the consumer complaint have filed these two appeal on the ground that during the warranty period whatever defects noticed in the tempo were promptly attended and even the new engine was fitted by replacing the old one. Even though the tempo covered distance of 12374 kilometers, as a goodwill gesture the Opponent No.1 changed the engine of the vehicle on free of cost basis. The Respondent/Complainant did not observe certain conditions explained to him for smooth running of the tempo. The District Forum without taking into consideration the action taken/relief provided by fitting new engine, allowed the consumer complaint and that too without production of any technical expert evidence by the Complainant to establish manufacturing defects in the engine. 4. We have perused the record placed before us in both the appeals. Heard Ld.Advocates of the parties. The Ld.Advocate of the Appellants drawn our attention to the registration of the disputed tempo as roadworthy by the concerned authority. He also further pleaded that without undergoing the fitness test of the vehicle, authority would never register the vehicle as fit for use and not issue the certificate in this behalf. As and when there was a technical problem in the tempo it was promptly attended during the warranty period by the Opponent No.2 and even on expiry of the warranty period the new engine was fitted under the supervision of expert technician, which is not denied by the Respondent/Complainant. It is interesting to note that at the time of fitting of the new engine on the chasis the tempo covered the distance of 12374 kilometers. When the vehicle could cover such a long distance without any problem even prior to replacement of the engine. Therefore, it is not acceptable that the regular repairs/problems brought to the notice of the Opponent No.2 were not attended. There is also no denial from the Respondent/Complainant that after covering the distance of 12374 kilometers by the tempo, Respondent/Complainant has carried out repairs to engine in an unauthorized workshop and some non-genuine parts were fitted in the engine which were causing damage to the vital components of the engine. 5. In view of the aforesaid observations, we find that technical fault brought to the notice of the Opponents as and when occurred during the warranty period was promptly attended to and beyond the warranty period a new engine was fitted on the chasis of the tempo. Moreover, the tempo was registered by the authorities after undergoing regular tests and certificate was issued for roadworthiness. All these vital issues have not been considered by the Ld.District Forum while deciding the consumer complaint. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous, not sustainable in the eyes of the law and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside as no deficiency in service can be attributed to the Opponents (Appellants herein). We hold accordingly and pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal Nos.A/04/500 and A/04/515 are hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 27th November, 2003 passed in Consumer Complaint No.271/2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Consequently consumer complaint does not survive for consideration. (iv) In the given circumstances, no order as to costs. Pronounced on 25th September, 2013 | 
