2.	The case of the Complainant was that he being an unemployed youth holding a Route Permit of Autorickshaw, purchased one Diesel Vikram (3-wheeler Model and colour 410 D/Auto/Yellow & Black) from the dealer, the OP No.1 M/s Manik Motors as per Invoice for Rs. 1,01,000/- (payment by cash of Rs. 21,000/- and by DD of Rs. 80,000/- taken as loan from the Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank, Aliporeduar). But within 15 days from the date of purchase, the engine plate of the Autorickshaw broke down, lube oil leaked with excess consumption and the engine got heated and the problem over starting of the vehicle developed. The Complainant at once informed the OP No. 1 over telephone of such problems arising in the vehicle but OP No.1 did not take any step. Such negligence on the part of the OP constituted deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice particularly when the Complainant suffered financial loss and various hazards as a result. Hence, he brought his complaint before the Consumer Forum praying for an order for refund of consideration money with interest and compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,09,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-.
3.	The Forum after hearing both and considering the materials on record adduced by both the sides, came to the conclusion that there had been deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and therefore, they were liable to either replace the Autorickshaw in dispute by a new and defect free one or, in the alternative, they would refund the consideration money which they took from the Complainant as price of the Autorickshaw in dispute to the Complainant.
4.	It is the first contention of the Learned Advocate for the Appellant that under the terms of the Warranty that was valid for 6 months, if the purchaser does not avail himself of the benefit of free service once every month during this period of six months, then he will be deprived of getting any benefit of this warranty and, therefore, the contention of the Complainant that the vehicle developed defects during the period of warranty is of no avail. As against this point raised by the OPs-Appellant, the finding of the Forum is that the defects emerged in the vehicle within a very short period, namely, 15 days from the date of purchase and the Complainant communicated to the OPs about such defects which touched the Engine of the vehicle, on different dates like 31.03.2000, 08.10.2001 etc, but in vain. Since, the distance between the place of the Complainant and the place where the Service Centre of the OP No.1 was situated was extremely long being 360 km, it was not possible for the Complainant to come to such a distant place every month with his defective vehicle for obvious reasons, as such an exercise would involve not only excessive cost but also a good number of hazards of different kinds, for example, either it would have to be carried in a truck on payment of substantial amount of hiring charges or it would have to be carried along such a route manually by means of pulling and pushing over the road. The Forum has further found that admittedly the OP gave an assurance to the Complainant at the time of the purchase of the vehicle that a service centre would be set up at Aliporeduar to enable the purchasers like the Complainant to have servicing of their vehicles done easily and conveniently, but the OP No.1 did not care to keep its words and the Complainant thereby had rightly and justifiably taken the plea that on the basis of such assurance being given by the OP, he purchased the Autorickshaw and the assurance having not been fulfilled, it is the OP who is at fault and not the Complainant for such violation of the term of warranty. In our opinion, keeping in view the general trend of legislation as well as various decisions of the Apex Court concerning the consumer cases to the effect that the interpretation of the various provisions of the law on the subject should be in a consumer-friendly way, the above findings of the Forum are not without justification. The OP gave an assurance to the Complainant prior to his purchase of the vehicle that they would open a service centre for their vehicles near about latter's place of residence or place of business. On the basis of such an assurance or word of OPs he purchased the vehicle, but ultimately such an assurance was not kept. Such a failure on the part of OP certainly amounts to a deficiency in service. The consequent failure of the Complainant to take his defective vehicle to the service centre at Siliguri from Aliporeduar a far away place, can very well be explained by virtue of this reason. In this connection, OP No.1's letter dated 04.12.2001 informing the Complainant about organising of a service camp at their dealership point at Siliguri from 12.12.2001 to 24.12.2001 in association with M/s Greaves Auto Ltd is relevant. This shows that the OP No.1 was conscious about the inability to keep their words by installing a service centre at Aliporeduar as they allegedly undertook to do before the Complainant.
5.	The second contention of the Learned Advocate for the Appellant is that there was no manufacturing defect and the manufacturer has not been impleaded. As to this, the finding of the Forum is that defective workmanship and materials except rubber components, bulbs, windshield glass, parts like batteries, tyres etc. covered by the manufacturer guarantee are subject to terms and conditions of repair. In other words, according to the Forum, such defects as alleged, are practically manufacturing defects. The Forum came to such a conclusion in view of the averment of the OP Nos. 2 & 3 in paragraph 9 of their written version where they have stated that the matters were taken up with the Engine manufacturers who agreed to replace the Engine by way of a good gesture. According to the opinion of the Forum, such question of replacement can arise only when an engine of the vehicle is found defective and a defect in the engine is certainly a manufacturing defect. The Forum held that thus, it was practically admitted that the vehicle was suffering from some manufacturing defect and came within the purview of the warranty for being replaced. The Learned Advocate for the Appellant has vehemently argued that without referring the matter to an expert and getting his opinion as to the nature of the alleged defects in the vehicle, the Forum could not take the defects as manufacturing defects. In support of this contention, the Learned Advocate has referred to the decision reported in I (2000) CPJ 54 MP SCDRC, Bhopal. This ruling was also referred to before the Forum, which has distinguished this case from our present case by giving some reasons. In this case under reference, an old tractor was the subject matter of dispute, whereas in the instant case, a new three-wheeler which developed some defects within 15 days of purchase is in dispute and moreover, the Inspection Report dated 09.06.2001 would go to show that there were manifold lapses like want of replacement of Engine Oil in time, Tap adjustment being improper creating noise, Air cleaner not cleaned up in time, Gear Box oil not changed in due period, Fuel filter not replaced in time, Clutch adjustment being improper and greasing not done creating noise. According to the Forum, all such findings of the surveyor go to show that unless there had been some inherent or chronic defect, the consequential disorder could not have occasioned. In view of such nature of the defect and the disorder occurring in respect of the vital parts of the vehicle including its engine, the Forum had held that such defects constitute manufacturing defects in the Autorickshaw concerned and no expert is required to reaffirm this position. In our opinion, the above finding of the forum gets strengthened by the admitted fact that the OP Nos. 2 and 3 who are manufacturers of the Autorickshaw in dispute minus its engine and who took the engine from its manufacturer M/s Greaves Ltd, Aurangabad, took up the matter with them (M/s Greaves Ltd) when the latter agreed to replace the engine of the disputed vehicle by a good one (vide paragraph 9 of the written version of the OP Nos. 2 and 3 filed before the Forum). It has been argued on behalf of the OP Nos. 2 & 3 that such offer was made by the said manufacturer of the engine by way of a good gesture. But the Forum quite rightly has disbelieved this and according to it, unless the engine is found defective, the manufacturer cannot so easily express its readiness to get it replaced by a new one. We also accept this view of the Forum. It is really difficult to accept the contention that simply as a good gesture, a businessman can go to such an extent. Because to replace an engine by a new one in respect of a huge number of purchasers, once such a policy is pursued in respect of one purchaser, the company cannot discriminate and has to accept similar claims of other buyers who have experienced similar defects in their vehicles and this is not a matter of joke as it involves considerable cost and a businessman, regard being had to the course of conduct of human beings of ordinary prudence, is supposed hardly to take such risks out of sheer courtesy or good gesture. Therefore, we do not think that the Forum has committed any error by arriving at such a conclusion that the nature of the defects which the disputed vehicle has been subjected to and the above mentioned admission of the OP Nos. 2 & 3 taken together, unerringly show that the defects occurring to the disputed vehicle just after 15 days from the date of its purchase were in the nature of manufacturing defects and the omission on the part of the Forum to refer the matter to any expert for opinion, this question cannot be said to have struck any blow to the credibility of the Complainant's case. So we do not accept the contention of the Appellant that in the absence of such a report of the expert, the case of the Complainant-Respondent has no legs to stand upon.
6.	Another contention of the Appellant also does not impress us that the non-joinder of the Manufacturer as a party to the complaint is fatal, rendering the complaint bad and liable to be dismissed. Admittedly, the OP Nos. 2 & 3 are the manufacturers of the Autorickshaw in dispute while the OP No.1 is the dealer from whom the Complainant purchased the vehicle. In our opinion, this is enough for the Complainant while filing the complaint and it is not the intention of the laws to require impleadment of all the manufacturers if different parts of the vehicle are manufactured by different persons.
7.	The decision reported in 2001 WBLR (CPSC) 3 of the WBSCDRC referred to by the Learned Advocate for the Appellant is found to be not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In that case under reference, there was no material to prove that the chassis of the vehicle in dispute had any inherent defect and moreover, there were repairs effected to the vehicle which were made by some road-side garage, a fact which constituted violation of warranty and on that score the Commission held that the Complainant was not entitled to any relief. But in our case as we have seen, the alleged defects have been proved to be inherent and manufacturing defects in respect of the engine of the vehicle and therefore, they were coverable under the terms of the Warranty; and secondly, as regards the allegation that the repairs had been done by road-side garage, the special circumstances responsible for compelling the Complainant to get such repairs done by unauthorised repairing shop have been described above. It was due to the long distance of about 360 km between the Complainant's place and the OP's Service Centre and garage at Siliguri that the Complainant could not be in a position to take the vehicle to the OP's garage. We have also shown that in spite of an assurance given by the OP No.1 that it would start and install a service centre near the place of the Complainant at Aliporeduar, the OP has ultimately kept no such promise. So the case under reference is clearly distinguishable from the case at hand and that judgment is not attracted here.
8.	In view of the reasons discussed above, we are constrained to hold that the contention advanced by the Learned Advocate for the Appellant is not impressive and we do not find any fault with the findings of the Forum which should remain intact. Accordingly, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed on contest, however, without any cost under the circumstances. The impugned judgment and order be affirmed.