2.	For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as their status before the District Forum in the complaint case.
3.	It is not in dispute that Complainant Virendra Panigrahi purchased a truck from OP No. 1 Eicher Motors through its dealer at Jagdalpur - Superior Automotive in the year 2005. The vehicle was delivered on 28/10/2005 and warranty of two years (valid up to 28/10/2007) was provided on engine of the vehicle. During that warranty period, on 26/02/2007, defects cropped up in the engine of the vehicle; so, it was brought to the service centre of OP No. 1 - Dynamic Motors, Raipur, which was OP No. 3 in the complaint case. The vehicle was repaired and handed over to the Complainant.
4.	The case of Complainant before District Forum was that during such repair, OP No. 3 used old and used parts for replacement of defective parts after reconditioning and on account of use of such reconditioned old parts, the vehicle again failed on 28/03/2008 at Geedam Road. Intimation was given to OP No. 1. Then Service Engineer of the company, Shri Rajesh Yadav, was sent on spot, who after examination of the vehicle, removed the engine from the vehicle and brought it to Raipur for repair. The allegation of Complainant is that as earlier the vehicle was not properly repaired and old parts were used, the subsequent defects in the vehicle were on account of such earlier use of old parts for replacement. Accordingly, the OPs committed deficiency in service in replacing the parts of the vehicle during warranty period and, hence, are responsible to pay compensation and to repair the vehicle free of cost.
5.	In the complaint, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 was also demanded for the period between 26/02/2007 to 20/05/2007, during which the vehicle in question was under repair with OP No. 3. The estimate for subsequent defects was Rs. 1,02,375, as assessed by OP No. 2 and this amount was also demanded in the complaint.
6.	OP No. 1 denied its liability in respect of the vehicle and averred that the vehicle had run for about 8 months after repair in the year 2007, which shows that no defective parts were used during the process of repairing. That the cause for the ceasing of engine in the month of March, 2008 was insufficient lubricating oil in the engine. On account of insufficient lubricating oil, crane shaft of the engine ceased and failed. It has also been averred that as per job card of Dynamic Motors dated 23/04/2007. earlier also, defects generated in the vehicle were on account of overloading. On account of 29-30 tonnes of load on the vehicle, there was leakage of oil and coolant and that is why on account of improper lubrication, the engine ceased. Thus, in sum and substance, the plea of OP No. 1 was that engine of the vehicle in question, failed on account of improper use and non-maintenance of the vehicle and not on account of use of old parts during earlier repairing. So far as OP No. 3 is concerned, this party remained absent and was proceeded ex-parte. OP No. 2 was having no role to play in the litigation, as there was no allegation of deficiency in service against it.
7.	District Forum by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the Complainant failed to prove that there was some inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. So, OP No. 1 was not found liable to pay anything or to replace entire engine on account of manufacturing defect. However, looking to the allegation of the Complainant that old and used parts were used during repairing, it was found that there was deficiency in service during warranty period and, therefore, free of cost repairing of the engine of the vehicle and payment of compensation had been ordered by the District Forum.
8.	We have heard arguments of both parties and perused the record of District Forum.
9.	The Complainant came before District Forum with case that defective, old and used parts were used by OP No. 3 at the time of repairing of the vehicle in the month of February 2007 and that on account of use of such parts, the engine of the vehicle again ceased on 28/3/2008. As it was allegation of the Complainant, it was the duty of Complainant to prove this fact. We find that no evidence had been led by the Complainant in support of such allegation. Learned counsel for the Complainant has also agreed that no expert evidence was adduced by the Complainant. However, he submitted that as, after repair in the month of May 2007, the engine of the vehicle again ceased after short duration, it must be presumed that it was on account of use of old parts for replacement at the time of earlier repairing.
10.	We find that some reports have been filed by the OPs before the District Forum including job card at the time of earlier repairing and the estimate of OP No. 2 is also available on record.
11.	From the estimate of OP No. 2 regarding defects in the vehicle, it appears that clutch disk assembly, clutch cover assembly were needing replacement. Clutch unit and breakdown charges have also been mentioned in the estimate.
12.	We find that at that time, the Complainant paid charges for repairing and the vehicle in question was repaired on payment.
13.	It also appears that the repairing, in which, allegedly, old parts were used for repairing, was effected on 20/05/2007 and the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant after that repair. Annexure NA-1 is an e-mail of employee of manufacturing company, wherein it has been stated that the vehicle was overloaded and failure had occurred due to driver's negligence, as turbocharger was throwing oil, leading to oil starvation. The radiator lower hose was also damaged, leading to coolant loss & engine ceasing. However, technically, it was not covered by warranty, but considering that Chhattisgarh is tough market for Eicher and to avoid negative word of mouth publicity in Jagdalpur area, the company extended a goodwill warranty sharing 33.33% of the repair cost. The dealer and the Complainant also shared 33.33% each.
14.	From this letter, it appears that at that time repairing was effected on share basis as Goodwill warranty and manufacturing company shared for the repairing only on account of its goodwill and not on account of any legal obligation.
15.	From the complaint and from the aforesaid letter, it is clear that the vehicle in question was purchased by the Complainant on 30/09/2005 and thus, the warranty was valid only up to the period of September 2007 and thereafter, the liability of the manufacturing company was over.
16.	The breakdown, which has been alleged by the Complainant, happened subsequently on 28/03/2008 i.e. after expiry of the warranty and after the running of vehicle for about 10 months, from the last repair under the goodwill warranty. In view of this, the manufacturing company cannot be faulted of providing a defective or such engine, which is having any manufacturing defect. Had there been any such engine, then the vehicle could not have run for around a period of three years almost continuously. Apart from it, there appears no expert opinion to show that there were certain defects in the engine manufactured by the company. The finding of District Forum is also not to the effect that the engine of the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect.
17.	In view of the aforesaid, the District Forum has committed an error in giving direction to the manufacturing company, along with the dealer to repair the engine free of cost. It has further committed a mistake in directing the manufacturing company to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-as compensation to the Complainant on joint and several liability basis with repairer on the allegation that he used old parts at the time of earlier repairing.
18.	So far as order against Respondent No. 3 - Dynamic Motors, Raipur is concerned, as that order has not been challenged by Dynamic Motors, Raipur, by way of preferring appeal, such order has become final against that Respondent and calls for no interference.
19.	So far as appeal of the Complainant is concerned, its ground is that the engine, which was repaired by the Respondent No. 3 was having some manufacturing defect and old parts were used at the time of earlier repair, the order of District Forum be modified and OPs/ Respondents be directed to provide new engine to the Complainant and also to pay compensation.
20.	In support of allegations of manufacturing defect in the engine or use of old parts at the time of repairing, no substantial evidence has been produced, apart from hearsay statement of two witnesses, which has also been contradicted by service engineer, Mr Rajesh Yadav. None of them were expert to say that the parts, which were used by the repairer, were old ones. In view of this, we do not find any substance in the allegation of the Complainant that the parts, which were used at the time of repairing, were old ones. We further find no substance in the argument that Respondent No.1 be directed to provide new engine.
21.	In view of the aforesaid, the Appeal No. 580/2010, preferred by the Complainant, is having no force to succeed, and therefore, the same is dismissed.
22.	In the result, the Appeal No. 580/2010, preferred by the Complainant is dismissed. The Appeal No. 582/ 2010, preferred by the OP No. 1/manufacturing company, is allowed and the order recorded by the District Forum, is modified to the effect that it will be operative only against OP No. 3 - Dynamic Motors, Raipur. No order as to the cost of these appeals.