ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 16.11.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 207/2011 title Neeraj Bhardwaj v. Mahindra & Mahindra Motor Ltd. Brief facts of Case: 2. Shri Neeraj Bhardwaj complainant filed consumer complaint pleaded therein that in the month of March 2010 complainant purchased one Logan Car bearing registration No.HP-64A-0990 in consideration amount of Rs. 5.00 lac. It is pleaded that warranty was given to complainant for a period of two years. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and opposite party No. 2 is authorized dealer. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 3 is sub agent of opposite party No. 1 at Solan. It is pleaded that complainant informed about defect in the vehicle vide letter dated 18.05.2010 vide Annexure-8. It is pleaded that complainant handed over the vehicle to opposite parties for removing the defect but defect was not removed by the opposite parties. It is pleaded that complainant also issued legal notice on dated 03.11.2010 through registered A.D. Complainant sought relief for removal of defective parts i.e. gear box, tyre problem, noise problem. In addition complainant also sought compensation for financial loss to the tune of Rs. 22000/-(Twenty two thousand). In addition complainant also sought punitive damage to the tune of Rs. 2.00 lac. In addition complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 11000/-(Eleven thousand). 3. Opposite party No. 1 did not file independent version and adopted the version filed by opposite parties No. 2 & 3. It is pleaded by opposite parties No. 2 & 3 that complaint is not maintainable due to act, deeds, conduct and acquiescence of the complainant. It is pleaded that complaint is devoid of any merits. It is admitted that opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are authorised dealers of opposite party No. 1. It is admitted that warranty was issued to the complainant. It is pleaded that new vehicle without any manufacturing defect was sold by the opposite parties to complainant. It is pleaded that complainant did not receive the vehicle despite several requests and is liable to pay Rs. 500/- per day as parking charges. It is pleaded that as per Annexure-RB there was no defect in the vehicle. It is pleaded that new vehicle without any manufacturing defect was sold by the opposite parties to complainant. It is pleaded that complainant did not receive the vehicle despite several requests and is liable to pay Rs. 500/- per day as parking charges. It is pleaded that as per Annexure-RB there was no defect in the vehicle. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum on dated 16.11.2016 dismissed the complaint filed by complainant. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum complainant filed the present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and we have also heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence. There is recital in affidavit that on 23.03.2010 deponent purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.HP-64A-0990 from opposite party No. 2. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No. 1 is manufacturer of the vehicle and opposite party No. 2 is authorized dealer of opposite party No. 1 at Shimla and opposite party No. 3 is sub agent of opposite party No. 1 at Solan. There is further recital in affidavit that defect occurred in the vehicle and matter was reported to opposite parties. There is further recital in affidavit that defect was not removed by the opposite parties despite several requests. There is further recital in affidavit that legal notice dated 03.11.2010 by way of registered post was also issued to the opposite parties. 8. Opposite parties did not file any evidence by way of affidavits relating to consumer dispute as required under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has given statement on 27.08.2013 that version along-with annexures be read as evidence of opposite party No. 1. 9. It is proved on record that vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 23.03.2010 in consideration amount of Rs. 5.00 lac. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has given statement on 27.08.2013 that version along-with annexures be read as evidence of opposite party No. 1. 9. It is proved on record that vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 23.03.2010 in consideration amount of Rs. 5.00 lac. It is also proved by way of affidavit filed by complainant that after purchase defect occurred in Gear box and tier problem and noise problem also occurred in the vehicle. Opposite parties did not file any counter affidavit in evidence as per section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Affidavit filed by complainant remain un-rebutted on record. 10. Opposite party also did not file affidavit of mechanic in order to prove that there was no defect in Gear box, tyre and that there was no noise problem in the vehicle. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the opposite parties by State Commission. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has given statement on dated 27.08.2013 that version and annexures be read in evidence. It is held that version cannot be treated as evidence of the opposite party No. 1 because version is pleading of the opposite party No. 1 and not evidence of opposite party No. 1 as mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of consumer dispute. It is held that pleading of the parties and evidence of the parties relating to consumer dispute under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 are entirely two different concepts under law. It is held that parties can file evidence relating to consumer dispute only as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence relating to consumer dispute as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the opposite parties in the present case. 11. State Commission is of the opinion that manufacturing defect means large scale defect in the product of machinery. State Commission is also of the opinion that defect in gear box means defect in box which control speed of an engine and speed of wheels. State Commission is of the opinion that gear box means a box which gives specified speed or power outlet. State Commission is also of the opinion that defect in gear box means defect in box which control speed of an engine and speed of wheels. State Commission is of the opinion that gear box means a box which gives specified speed or power outlet. State Commission is of the opinion that defect in gear box falls within the definition of defective part of vehicle and cover under warranty condition. 12. State Commission has also perused the warranty card Annexure-RA issued by opposite parties. As per warranty card opposite party No. 1 has took the warranty to repair or replace any defective parts during two years after sale or usage of vehicle up to 50000 Kilometers which occurs earlier. Opposite parties did not take the plea that vehicle was used more than 50000 kilometers when the complaint was lodged with the opposite parties relating to defect in gear box. It is held that defect in gear box falls within the definition of the defect in one part of vehicle and did not fall within the definition of manufacturing defect in the entire machinery of the vehicle. In view of the fact that complaint was filed within two years after the purchase of vehicle and in view of the fact that vehicle was not used more than 50000 kilometers when defect in part of vehicle was informed to opposite parties and in view of the warranty card issued by opposite parties it is held that opposite parties are under legal obligation to replace the gear box of vehicle i.e. part of vehicle with new one. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 13. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum announced in consumer complaint No. 207/2011 is modified to the extent that opposite parties would jointly and severally replace part of vehicle i.e. gear box of the vehicle with new one within one month from the date of receipt of order. It is further held that opposite parties would jointly and severally pay compensation to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). Other reliefs sought by the complainant are declined. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. It is further held that opposite parties would jointly and severally pay compensation to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand). Other reliefs sought by the complainant are declined. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along-with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.