ORDER JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT — The Area Manager, Mahin¬dra & Mahindra Ltd., Bomikhal, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, and the Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Appolo Bunder, Mumbai are the appellants before us. By means of this appeal, they have assailed the order of the District Forum, Kendrapara passed on 16.12.2004 in C.D. Case No.95 of 2004. The complaint filed by Ashok Kumar Das (respondent No.1 herein) alleging unfair trade practice in the matter of replacement of his three-wheeler was admitted and the impugned judgment and order was passed directing the appellants (who were opposite parties 2 and 3 before the District Forum) to replace the vehicle (three wheeler) of the complainant or to return the cost price thereof along with permissible savings bank interest from the date of purchase till filing of the complaint. The District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs.42,000/- as repairing cost, compensation for mental agony and cost of the litigation. 2. The factual background of the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a three-wheeler diesel auto being fi¬nanced by the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Kendrapara Branch (opposite party No.4) to maintain his livelihood. The said three-wheeler auto was manufactured by opposite party No.3 Mahin¬dra & Mahindra Ltd. and was sold through opposite party No.1, Utkal Motors, the authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra. After purchase of the said vehicle on 04.06.2003, the complainant well maintained the same as the said vehicle was the only source of income to maintain his family. After about 8 days of purchase after smooth running, some defects cropped up, which were detect¬ed and repaired by the authorized dealer, i.e., opposite party No.1, Utkal Motors. But, to the ill-luck of the complainant, further defects were detected in respect of some major parts of the vehicle, such as air-cleaner, filter, shock absorber, clutch, gear box and gear, etc. In spite of assurance of the dealer opposite party No.1 to send mechanic for repair of the vehicle, no step was take for repair of the vehicle nor was any mechanic sent to attend to the vehicle and the complainant was harassed at such attitude of opposite party No.1. In spite of the same, he availed the necessary free servicing at opposite party Nos.1’s workshop. In spite of the same, he availed the necessary free servicing at opposite party Nos.1’s workshop. On 20.10.2003, when he was availing free service, one mechanic of the service centre confiding with him intimated that due to manufacturing defects, the vehicle was getting disordered from time to time. The dealer opposite party No. 1 further advised the complainant to make repairing at Kendrapara whenever neces¬sary and assured that if any further defect was detected, the demand of the complainant for replacement of the vehicle would be considered. 3. From the aforementioned averments, it is the sum total of the case of the complainant that neither the dealer nor the manufacturer attended to his grievance. Since his vehicle was frequently going out of order and was requiring replacement of spare parts, the vehicle had manufacturing defect and as such it should be replaced or the price of the vehicle refunded to him with compensation. 4. Opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 04.06.2003. The warranty of the vehicle was valid for six months from the date of purchase. As per the warranty card, opposite party No.3 the company assured its cus¬tomers that if some defect is detected, the company is obliged to replace the part free of cost. Warranty excluded proprietor components, i.e., starter motor, battery, tyres, tubes, etc. In the present litigation, the complainant alleges that during the warranty period, the disputed vehicle exhibited many defects in the engine, gear box, clutch plate, etc., and the defects were not attended to or rectified by the opposite parties, for which he was forced to remove the defects by repairing the vehicle in private garages (unauthorized garages). It is stated in the written version that purchase of spare parts by the complainant from the local market and Cuttack, for which series of cash memos have been filed, are beyond the warranty period and as such the opposite parties are not liable in anyway nor is there any manu¬facturing defect in the vehicle. It has further been stated in the written version that the company does not take the responsi¬bility for any check up of the vehicle or purchase of spare parts from any outside vendor and not from the authorized dealer or sale point. 5. It has further been stated in the written version that the company does not take the responsi¬bility for any check up of the vehicle or purchase of spare parts from any outside vendor and not from the authorized dealer or sale point. 5. On a reading of the impugned judgment, we find that it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the ground reality is that the disputed vehicle was plying/oper¬ating in and around Kendrapara, which is about 70 Kms. away from the authorized dealer point at Cuttack and as such it was not always possible for the complainant to drive his three-wheeler to Cuttack for necessary check up. It was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant before the District Forum, as we find from the body of the judgment, that the frequent defects in the vehicle and the vehicle being stranded and remained idle are conditions which have to be presumed due to manufacturing defect, and to get rid of such situation, the complainant was compelled to rectify the defects at Kendrapara. That apart, when the oppo¬site parties did not attend to the grievance of the complainant pertaining to replacement of spare parts, the complainant had to purchase those spare parts from Cuttack and Kendrapara. 6. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the free service facilities rendered during the warranty period. The vehicle was admittedly purchased on 04.06.2003 and the first free servicing was done on 19.06.2003 after running 957 Kms. In the job card, there are details of servicing done with the signature of the respondent. By the second service on 08.08.2003, the vehicle had run kilometerage of 5600, i.e., within a period of two months from the date of pur¬chase. At the second servicing, it was detected that there was a crack in the wheel rim and the same was replaced as per the job card. There was no other defect in the vehicle. At the next date of servicing, i.e., 20.09.2003, the vehicle had covered 8500 Kms and no major defect was detected. On the next servicing on 20.10.2003, the vehicle had covered 11500 Kms. 7. There was no other defect in the vehicle. At the next date of servicing, i.e., 20.09.2003, the vehicle had covered 8500 Kms and no major defect was detected. On the next servicing on 20.10.2003, the vehicle had covered 11500 Kms. 7. From the above record regarding the servicing and kilometerage recorded at the time of servicing, we can come to the conclusion that without any major defect, excepting that one rim was cracked which was replaced, the vehicle was running. Even after the warranty period was over, there was also free replace¬ment of one torsion bar in the vehicle by the dealer (opposite party No.1). 8. This is a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties, for which they have been penalized by the District Forum. But, on a very perusal of the free service record of the vehicle during the warranty period, we have noticed absolutely no such major defect in the vehicle, or any such defect has been complained as per the job card. Whatever complaint made has been rectified. But, those are not manufactur¬ing defects, as has been alleged by the complainant. Apart from that, there is no expert opinion to show that the vehicle actual¬ly from the initial stage of purchase had shown manufacturing defects, for which it should be replaced by a new vehicle of the same brand or the cost price thereof should be refunded. Running of the vehicle within a period of six months up to near about 12000 Kms. is sufficient to show that if at the vehicle was exhibiting any defect requiring repair, it was due to handling of; the same by inept hands, who are not authorized to handle or repair it. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appel¬lants that violation of condition of the warranty by the com¬plainant in getting the vehicle repaired at Kendrapara by inexpe¬rienced hands may be the reason for the defects occurred and it is not due to any manufacturing defect or non-attendance of the complaint of the complainant by the authorized dealer at Cuttack. 9. 9. In that view of the matter, it is very difficult to conclude that the vehicle had, right after one week from the date of purchase, developed manufacturing defect and for that the vehicle should be replaced by a new one of the same brand or the cost price of the same should be refunded to the complainant. When we come to the conclusion that there was no manufacturing defect and there is no expert opinion to that effect proved by the complainant by bringing the same on record and on the very face of admission by the learned counsel for the complainant that due to the distance from Kendrapara to the dealer point, which is about 70 Kms., the vehicle was allowed to be handled by local private garages for rectification of defects, we hold that what¬ever defect that occurred or developed in the vehicle was due to mishandling of the same by inept hands after the warranty period was over and no manufacturing defect was there in the vehicle to hold the opposite parties liable in the consumer complaint case. 10. In that view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the District Forum Kendrapara passed in C.D. Case No.95 of 2004 on 16.12.2004 and direct dismissal of the said case. Appeal allowed.