ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 24.11.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.101/2012 title Ramesh Chand vs. General Manager Tata Motor Ltd. & others. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Ramesh Chand filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant purchased one Tata Vista Car on 12.01.2012 from opposite parties whose is dealer of Tata Motors. It is pleaded that after few days car started giving trouble due to some defect on dated 14.02.2012. It is further pleaded that the car was dropped at the authorised service station of opposite parties by complainant and same was returned by opposite parties after minor repair on dated 15.02.2012. It is pleaded that again defect occurred in the vehicle and vehicle was given to opposite parties several times but defect was not removed by opposite parties. It is pleaded that opposite party sold the car of model 2010 instead of model 2012 and charged money for the latest model 2012. It is further pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of replacement of car with latest model. In addition complainant also sought compensation for physical and mental harassment to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lac (Five lac). In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 pleaded therein that cars and vehicles manufactured by opposite parties passes through stringent quality checks and road trials. It is further pleaded that cars and vehicles are approved by Automotive Research Association of India. It is pleaded that vehicle was sold on principal to principal basis. It is pleaded that opposite parties have provided 24 X 7 Toll free helpline service. It is further pleaded that opposite party being manufacturer of vehicle gives warranty for a specific period on stipulated terms and conditions to consumer. It is pleaded that both the parties are governed under warranty policy conditions. It is further pleaded that complainant has suppressed material facts from the Forum and manufacturing defect is not proved. It is pleaded that proper services were provided to complainant and complainant has plied the vehicle till 17.04.2013 approximately about 18040 KMs. It is pleaded that both the parties are governed under warranty policy conditions. It is further pleaded that complainant has suppressed material facts from the Forum and manufacturing defect is not proved. It is pleaded that proper services were provided to complainant and complainant has plied the vehicle till 17.04.2013 approximately about 18040 KMs. It is further pleaded that entire transaction of vehicle took place between complainant and opposite party No.3. It is pleaded that opposite parties No.1 & 2 could not be held liable for the act of opposite party No.3. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 despite service and learned District Forum proceeded ex-parte against opposite party No.3 on dated 21.11.2012. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint on dated 24.11.2016. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether mentioning wrong month & year of manufacturing in sale certificate by opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainant did not file any affidavit relating to controversial facts as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complainant relied upon affidavit filed in support of pleadings when original complaint was filed before learned District Forum. State Commission perused the annexure-Cl to C10 filed by complainant carefully. 8. Opposite party filed affidavit of Shri M.K. Bipin in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that cars and vehicles manufactured by opposite parties No.1 & 2 passes through stringent quality checks and road trials. There is recital in affidavit that manufacturer of vehicle used to give warranty card for a specific period. There is further recital in affidavit that relation of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and opposite party No.3 are on principal to principal basis. Opposite party No.3 did not appear before learned District Forum despite service and did not file any version and evidence in support of controversial facts. 9. There is further recital in affidavit that relation of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and opposite party No.3 are on principal to principal basis. Opposite party No.3 did not appear before learned District Forum despite service and did not file any version and evidence in support of controversial facts. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that as per sale certificate issued by opposite party No.3 as authorised dealer of opposite parties No.1 & 2 month & year of manufacturing has been mentioned as May 2010 and as per certificate of registration manufacturing year of vehicle has been mentioned as May 2009 and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused sale certificate annexure-C3 and certificate of registration annexure-C11 issued by Licencing Authority relating to vehicle in dispute. Chassis number of vehicle in sale certificate and certificate of registration is same. In certificate of registration issued by licencing authority manufacturing year has been mentioned as May 2009 and in sale certificate issued by opposite party No.3 as authorised dealer of opposite parties No.1 & 2 year of manufacturing has been mentioned as May 2010. In view of contradiction between sale certificate issued by opposite party No.3 as authorised dealer and certificate of registration issued by licencing authority relating to year of manufacturing State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by way of mentioning wrong month and year of manufacturing as May 2010 instead of May 2009. No explanation given by opposite parties as to why opposite parties have mentioned month & year as May 2010 when ipso facto the manufacturing year of vehicle sold was May 2009. State Commission is of the opinion that manufacturer and authorised dealer are under legal obligation to mention correct date of year of manufacturing of vehicle in sale certificate. State Commission is of the opinion that mentioning of wrong manufacturing year of vehicle in sale certificate of vehicle amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that manufacturing defect should be proved by way of evidence of expert. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that manufacturing defect should be proved by way of evidence of expert. Complainant did not file any affidavit of expert in order to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is held that plea of complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). See 2010 (1) CPJ 19 NC Dr. K. Kumar Advisor Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Dr. A.S. Narayana Rao & other. See 2016 (4) CPR 412 NC M/s. Tractor Dealers Farm Equipment and Machinery Company vs. Ghan Shayam Maurya & other. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 that vehicle was sold on principal to principal basis and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are not liable is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused sale certificate annexure-C3. Sale certificate was not issued on principal to principal basis but was issued by authorised dealer on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2. It is well settled law that manufacturer is liable for the act of its agent on the concept of vicarious liability. It is proved on record that opposite party No.3 has sold the vehicle to complainant as agent of opposite parties No.1 & 2. It is held that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are vicariously liable for the act of their agent. See 1997 (2) CPC 85 H.P Golden Forest India Ltd. vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2:- Final Order 12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum passed in consumer complaint No.101/2012 decided on 24.11.2016 title Ramesh Chand vs. General Manager Tata Motor Ltd. & others is set aside. It is ordered that opposite parties No.1 to 3 would jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) to complainant as compensation for mentioning wrong manufacturing date in sale certificate of vehicle. In addition opposite parties No.1 to 3 would jointly and severally pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand). Sale certificate annexure-C3 and registration certificate annexure-C11 will form part and parcel of order. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand) to complainant as compensation for mentioning wrong manufacturing date in sale certificate of vehicle. In addition opposite parties No.1 to 3 would jointly and severally pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand). Sale certificate annexure-C3 and registration certificate annexure-C11 will form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith 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.