IMPORTANT POINT
Mere self serving statement of complainant bereft of any material on record would not establish deficiency in service.

Arun Kumar Goel, President — Admitted facts of this case are that a Tata Sumo Vehicle was purchased by the appellant from respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and its manufacturer is respondent No.5. The warranty period of the vehicle purchased by the appellant was up to 18.7.2001. The appellant has placed on record amongst other documents, Annexure C1, Owner’s Manual and Service Book, of the vehicle in question. Record of repairs as contained in this service book shows that on 13.2.2001the vehicle was brought which contains particulars of the repairs carried out. Thereafter as per this service book, it was brought on 13.3.2002. Here submission of Mr. Chandel is that when the vehicle was left, its meter reading was 95058, whereas it has been tampered by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to 95258. Whether kilometers were tampered or not, in our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, it has no relevance.

2. Reason being that so long as the vehicle was under warranty respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as sellers and respondent No. 5 as manufacturer, are bound by the terms of warranty. Whereas admittedly it was brought after 13.2.2001 to respondent No.1 on 13.3.2002.

3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the interregnum i.e. between 13.2.2001 to 13.3.2002, his client personally went number of times with the vehicle pointing out number of defects in the chassis of the vehicle and was assured orally that it will be replaced as and when replacement is received from the manufacturer. His further case is that telephonically also he was assured about the replacement of the chassis in question. Whereas on the other hand, stand of the seller as well as manufacturer is that whatever defects were pointed out during the warranty, those were carried out to entire satisfaction of the appellant, and at no point of time assurance as alleged was given either by the seller or the respondent No. 5, i.e. the manufacturer as alleged by him. Their further stand is that appellant was supposed to have got the vehicle serviced after having plied it for particular number of kilometers. There is nothing on record to suggest that needful was done by appellant. Further according to the respondents the defects in vehicle occurred were due to its poor maintenance as well as due to negligent handling.

4. So far plea of the appellant that he was verbally assured by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 regarding replacement of chassis from 13.2.2001 to 13.3.2002 is concerned, it is self serving statement without any basis or material having been placed on record. In the ordinary course of things when during the course of warranty, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 failed to do the needful, appellant was expected to have taken such action as per law so as to protect his interest. In these circumstances we reject the plea of oral assurance as alleged by the appellant.

5. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then admittedly warranty having expired on 18.7.2001, liability if any of the respondents ceased to exist after this date. Consequently, what falls from this is that the claim made by the appellant in his complaint was rightly rejected by the District Forum below. In this behalf, we may clarify that detailed facts have been noted by the District Forum below while dismissing the complaint which we are not repeating for the sake of brevity.

6. No other point was urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

Complaint dismissed.

*******