2.	Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that he purchased Innova Car 2.5 LG (G4) Model 2007 bearing Registration No. PB/II/AF/3638 from OP No. 1 on 15.2.2007 for Rs. 8,86,810.50 and he was given warranty of 1,00,000 kms regarding any defect in its machinery I engine. It was averred that on 5.9.2007, the car in question was being driven to Delhi, its pump stopped working and the car was taken to Galaxy Toyota at Delhi, where the pump was changed free of cost as the car was under warranty period but a sum of Rs. 6,906 was charged as miscellaneous expenses. It was further averred in the complaint that on 9.9.2007, the Complainant noticed some noise in the engine of the car and the car was taken to OP No. 1 and an estimate of zero rupee (C3) was prepared as the vehicle was under the warranty period and had only covered 88,356 kms. As per the Complainant, he registered a complaint with the company on 9.9.2007 vide No. TKM Main 10A-49701 but the complaint was not registered by the workshop official with company office and the vehicle was kept unattended for one month and seven days by the OPs. It was next averred that the complaint was registered only on 16.10.2007. It was the allegation of the Complainant that he made numerous visits to collect his car after repairs but the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally on 24.10.2007, when Complainant visited OPs to take delivery of his car, he was shocked to receive a bill of Rs. 71,378 (C4) despite zero estimate already given to the Complainant by the OPs. The Complainant, it was averred, was not in a position to make such a huge payment as he was already making payment of Rs. 16,700 per month as installments of the vehicle to finance company. The Complainant, it was next alleged, suffered huge financial loss on account of non-plying of the vehicle as the same had been lying in the workshop of OP No. 1. Being aggrieved by the issuance of bill (C4), the Complainant served upon OPs a legal notice dated 27.10.2007 (C5), calling upon them to deliver a new car, as many changes in the vehicle had been made by the OPs due to manufacturing defect in the same. On getting no response to the legal notice, ultimately, the present complaint was filed by the Complainant seeking directions to the OPs to replace the vehicle with a new one and further to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation along with litigation expenses besides interest @ 18% per annum.
3.	The version of OP No. 1 was that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle supplied to the Complainant. It was pleaded that a complaint was duly registered and a receipt was also given to the Complainant stating therein the estimate to be Zero and it further mentions "the estimate after check". As per OP No. 1, the vehicle was thoroughly checked and after obtaining permission from the Complainant, the necessary parts were changed as well as engine of the vehicle was opened and then assembled on 22.10.2007. Subsequently, the Complainant was told to take the delivery of the vehicle. As per this OP, the warranty claim of the Complainant was rejected by the OP No. 2 on the ground of non-periodic maintenance job of the vehicle. According to OP No. 2, service record sheet and vehicle history (R8 to R9) showed that many services were missed by the Complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.	The version of OP No. 2 was that the warranty claim of the Complainant was rejected on the ground of non-periodic maintenance job of the vehicle (R 1 & R2). It was pleaded that if the vehicle was not maintained as per periodic maintenance recommended by manufacturer, the oil might lose its lubrication property, which leads to wear and tear in the engine component causing noise and engine seizure in later course of time. It further pleaded that the warranty booklet clearly mentioned that "Lack of required regular maintenance may void warranty coverage" (R3). OP No. 2 next asserted that the problem in the vehicle occurred due to negligent act of Complainant himself by not following the periodic maintenance. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, this OP also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.	The learned District Forum after recording rival contentions of both the sides recorded that the necessary parts were changed and the engine of the vehicle was opened only after seeking permission from the Complainant and then assembled on 22.10.2007. It further recorded that the Complainant was duly informed to take the delivery of the vehicle and the warranty claim of the Complainant was rejected by OP No. 2 on the ground of non-periodic maintenance of the vehicle. As per the learned District Forum, Annexure R2 to R8 proved the fact that the Complainant had not got the vehicle timely serviced as was required under the Service Manual Booklet. The learned District Forum further observed that the Complainant had extensively used the vehicle as the same had covered 88,356 Kms on 9.9.2007 i.e. just in a short span of 8/9 months. In the view of the learned District Forum, had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it would not have run 88,356 Kms up to 9.9.2007. As per the learned District Forum, the problems, if any, occurred with the vehicle, the same were the result of services of the vehicle not got done by the Complainant in time. The learned District Forum while dealing with the contention of the Complainant regarding raising of a huge bill of Rs. 71,378 by the OPs, recorded that getting a vehicle repaired was a different issue than making payment of installments in respect of the vehicle. It recorded that the Complainant himself was negligent in not getting the vehicle timely serviced as per the prescribed schedule of the OP Company and the parts of the vehicle/engine were replaced only after obtaining due permission of the Complainant besides the fact that he had been given zero estimate on the date of handing over the vehicle to the OPs for necessary repairs. In the view of the learned District Forum, the Complainant had failed to place on record any expert opinion/evidence to prove his allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Referring to the law settled by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of Ajitha Chit Funds (P) Ltd v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd and Others, wherein it had categorically been held that in the absence of an expert evidence, .it could not be held that the car had any manufacturing defect and finding no merit in the complaint, the learned District Forum dismissed the same.
6.	Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the Complainant has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notices were sent to the Respondents/OPs and record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum. Sumeet Batra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant, whereas Pardeep Bedi, Advocate along with Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate represented the Respondents.
7.	The learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant Sumeet Batra, Advocate submitted that the car has been lying in the workshop of the OP for more than one year and he is being denied the use of the same. The learned counsel emphatically submitted that the vehicle was being very regularly maintained as per the manual of the car but on many occasions, when the vehicle was serviced by the OP, it did not enter it in the service book of the car. He also pointed out that a service on the car had been done just four days prior to the car developing the defect and at that time, nothing had been pointed out by the OP to the Complainant. He also referred to Annexures R8 to R10 to indicate as to when the car had been serviced and also to indicate the vehicle history with regard to its repairs, etc. His next submission was that very major repairs of the car had been done without his consent. He also pointed out that since the vehicle was under the warranty when he took the car to the OP, the cost of repairs had been indicated as zero rupee, as is evident from Annexure C3. Finally, reiterating that the vehicle had been properly maintained by the Complainant and that the defect in the vehicle was the manufacturing defect and the vehicle being under warranty, it was the liability of the OP to repair the vehicle free of cost.
8.	The learned counsel for the Respondents/OPs, Pradeep Bedi, Advocate submitted that the vehicle was not properly maintained as was evident from the service book of the car. He further submitted that as per Annexure C3, the Complainant had been intimated that the exact cost of repairs will only be told to him when the engine is opened up and subsequently, the same-had been done and the approval of the Complainant had been obtained for conducting the requisite repairs. However, the car in question having been repaired, the Complainant was not coming forth to take the same back after making payment for the repairs. He emphatically submitted before the Bench that since the car was not properly maintained, the warranty provided had ceased and therefore, there was no liability of the OPs to repair the car free of costs. To prove the bona fide of the OPs, the learned counsel also submitted that the pump of the car, which had stopped functioning on 5.9.2007, had been changed under the warranty by the OP and the Complainant was only charged miscellaneous expenses amounting to Rs. 6,906.
9.	We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
10.	Admittedly, the car was purchased on 15.2.2007 and the present problem with the engine cropped up on 9.9.2007 when the vehicle had already done over 88,000 kms of running. There is no averment of the Complainant that during this running of the vehicle, other than the change of the pump on 5.9.2007, there was any problem with the running of the car. It is seen from Annexure RS that this vehicle was required to be serviced over 5,000 kms. Annexure R8, however, indicates that this schedule had not been followed. As a matter of sheer calculations, the car should have been serviced at least seventeen times from the date of purchase till the development of the problem but as per Annexure R8, it had been serviced only for five times. It is also apparent from the entries in Annexure R8 that there were big gaps in getting the vehicle serviced. The case of the Complainant is that he got the service done but the same had not been entered in the service book by the OP. This contention cannot be taken at the face value because the Complainant has not produced any job cards/bills for the paid services, which he could have got done from the OP or any other regular service provider of the car. It is well known that after every 5,000 kms, a vehicle is to be fully serviced wherein its engine oil, oil filter, break fluids, air filters, etc. are duly changed to keep the vehicle in good running order. From the evidence on record, the Complainant has miserably failed to prove that the car had been properly serviced on due dates. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that the car in question had run for over 88,000 kms in just a matter of seven months meaning thereby that it had run for almost 12,000 kms every month, which makes us to believe that the Complainant must have been using this car very extensively for commercial purpose and he had neglected the maintenance of the car. It is also clear from the perusal of Annexure C3 that the car had been taken in by the OP for checking the problem of engine noise and it is also clear that it has been recorded on this very document provided by the Complainant himself that estimate of repairs was to be given only after the checking. Thus, we find merit in the contention of the OP that subsequently, the amount of repairs had been assessed and had been intimated to the Complainant before the vehicle was eventually repaired.
11.	In the present case, the Complainant not only himself failed to prove that he maintained the vehicle in question properly but has also failed to prove by any cogent evidence that there was a manufacturing defect in the car and that the problem, which occurred in the car, was not due to any lack of maintenance on his part.
12.	In this view of the matter, we are in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
13.	In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit and the impugned order is upheld. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.