JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, President.:---These appeals are filed by the original O.P. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd., and O.P. No. 2 Gadre Motors which are respectively the Manufacturer and dealer of Mahindra Jeep Model Commander. The District Forum, Akola in Complaint No. 41/95 was pleased to direct these appellants to replace the rear differential housing, Botsh Pump alongwith nozals etc. and rear tyres of the vehicle and further pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent/complainant Ramchandra Kanhaiyalalji Shraogi. The few facts are that the complainant obtained loan from Bank an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- from his mother for purchase of brand new Mahindra Jeep Commander 650 D12 WD with canvass Hood, from O.P. No. 2. The vehicle was sold for Rs. 2,27,470/- by dealer Gadre Motors and the delivery of the vehicle was given on 18-2-93. It seems that the vehicle developed trouble soon after the delivery and the complainant has been complaining every time in regard to the consumption, allignment of wheels. He gave notice and lodged the complaint. The appellants appeared and contended that all these complaints were made after the warranty period and the complainant is not entitled to any relief. However, by way of grace, on 30-11-93, the dealer replaced the defective rear differential housing by old one. According to appellant, there was no deficiency on their part since the claim is preferred after the period of warranty. The District Forum treated the Manual containing warranty as a guideline and felt that the complainant was not bound by the terms of the Manual and that the complainant was entitled to relief. Relying on the Manual as guideline as not binding on the complainant, the District Forum was pleased to pass the above order. 2.We are in total dis-agreement of this ratio enunciated by the District Forum. In the first place, the warranty is the part parcel of the Manual supplied by the manufacturer. The conditions in the Manual are binding between the parties. If this aspect is ignored, we feel that the complainant is not entitled to any service. If, on the other hand, we treat that the manufacturer is bound to render service to the purchaser till the vehicle is on road, such a proposition is incomprehensive. After all, various drivers ply their vehicles on various types of roads. They are driven by different types of the driver. They also face the seasonal hazards. If, on the other hand, we treat that the manufacturer is bound to render service to the purchaser till the vehicle is on road, such a proposition is incomprehensive. After all, various drivers ply their vehicles on various types of roads. They are driven by different types of the driver. They also face the seasonal hazards. There are also many occasions - the traffic being obstructed on the road and in such situation, the vehicle is subject to movements which are most uncertain and unpredictable. 3.Now, when we go through the record, we find that this vehicle has been running about 4,000 kms. per month. As per the warranty which is on record, the guarantee extends for a period of 180 days or 12,000 kms. whichever occurs earlier. It does not seem to be in dispute from the Job-Card that the vehicle had completed 12,000 kms. somewhere in the middle of May, 1993 because on 1-6-93, it had completed 18,800 kms. We have indicated that the average running of 4000 kms. per month and on that basis, the warranty was over in the month of May, 1993. After the expiry of warranty, the complainant could not look to the dealer or the manufacturer in regard to the replacement of the parts. Our attention is also drawn to the other clause viz. Fuel injection equipment. In case of diesel engine, it is stated that the owner shall refer to the M.I.C.O. dealer in regard to fuel injection equipment in case the engine is fitted with Mico box and if the engine is fitted with CAV RATO DIESEL pumps, the owner should refer the complaint to Lucas India Services. We also find that there are several proprietary items like Fuel Injection Pump, Nozzle/Heater Plugs which have to be referred to the proprietor/manufacturer of that part. The Manual clearly spells out that for these parts, the manufacturer shall not be responsible. 4.The learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that the dealer has carried out certain repairs even after the period of warranty and there was, therefore, waiver on the part of the dealer. We do not find that such a proposition can be canvassed when the warranty itself provides for the period or in the alternative mileage. 4.The learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that the dealer has carried out certain repairs even after the period of warranty and there was, therefore, waiver on the part of the dealer. We do not find that such a proposition can be canvassed when the warranty itself provides for the period or in the alternative mileage. 5.Our attention is drawn to the various Job Cards and we find that right upto August, the complainant had never complained about the parts about which the orders have been passed by the District Forum. It is for the first time that in the letter dated 4-9-93 that the complainant has made complaint about the tyres. We do not find any complaint with regard to other parts which have been ordered to be replaced by the District Forum. In the letter dated 49/93, the complainant stated that the rear left tyre had become useless after the running of 25,000 kms. The dealer was not looking after the vehicle properly. The complainant requested for replacement of tyres. The Ceat Company which is the manufacturer of tyres, has written that this tyre has run out of its life. There was no manufacturing defect and that the tyre had rendered full service. This letter is dt. 26-10-93. 6.The complainant has raised other questions regarding defective parts. The dealer had sheerly out of grace, replaced the defective housing when as a matter of fact, he was not under obligation to do so. Since the contract is covered by the terms of Manual and the warranty, we are of the view that the claim of the complainant after the period of warranty cannot be entertained. The District Forum, unfortunately, overlooked an important fact that the terms of Manual and Warranty is binding in between the parties and the warranty as part parcel of that book. It, unfortunately, construed the terms in the Manual as guidelines. This was patent error on the part of the District Forum. The learned Advocate who is respondent/complainant himself in these appeals, has drawn our attention to various authorities. But in this case, we feel that when the complaint itself is made after the period of warranty, there was no question of any performance of service by the appellant. We, therefore, pass the following order. ORDER 7."Both the appeals are allowed. The learned Advocate who is respondent/complainant himself in these appeals, has drawn our attention to various authorities. But in this case, we feel that when the complaint itself is made after the period of warranty, there was no question of any performance of service by the appellant. We, therefore, pass the following order. ORDER 7."Both the appeals are allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the original complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost." Appeals allowed.