Deficiency in service requires providers to fulfill warranty obligations; privity of contract claims must be supported by evidence.

1. The appellant is the 1st opposite party in C.C. No. 209/2014 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (District Forum for short). 1st respondent is the complainant and the 2nd & 3rd respondents are the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties.

2. The case of the 1st respondent / complainant is as follows: The complainant is an electric worker and he purchased a Green electric bike from the 1st opposite party on 7.8.2013 by paying an amount of Rs. 40,000. After one month of its purchase the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 1st opposite party for service. The complainant noticed some oil leakage in the vehicle and informed the same to the 1st opposite party. After inspection of the vehicle the service advisor informed him that the spare is not available and the spare part has to come from the 2nd opposite party. After two weeks the complainant again approached the 1st opposite party and the complaint was not yet rectified. The complainant again approached the 1st opposite party and demanded for a new vehicle. The opposite parties have not considered the grievance of the complainant. Hence the complainant preferred the complaint before the District Forum.

3. The 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: The complainant is not having any cause of action against the 1st opposite party. The complainant had not availed any service from the 1st opposite party. Since no service is availed there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party became the partner of KSM Green Motors only on 17.04.2014, whereas the case of the complainant was that he purchased the vehicle from the 1st opposite party on 07.08.2013. Thus from the case of the complainant itself it is proved that there is no nexus between the complainant and the 1st opposite party at the time of the alleged incident / cause of action. The 1st opposite party also pleaded the non - joinder of necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. After filing the version of the 1st opposite party the complainant impleaded the 2nd opposite party manufacturer and the 3rd opposite party the Managing Partner of KSM Green Motors. The 2nd opposite party remained ex parte and 3rd opposite party filed version denying the allegation raised by the complainant against them.

5. The District Forum recorded the evidence. On the side of the complainant Exts. A1 to A6 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. After recording the evidence and hearing of the parties the District Forum directed the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 40,000 being the value of the electric bike and to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as costs. Aggrieved by the above said order the 1st opposite party / appellant has filed this appeal.

6. The appellant raised the objection that there was no privity of contract or any sort of nexus between the complainant and the appellant at the time of the alleged purchase or at the time of the alleged cause of action. The District Forum without considering this aspect passed the impugned order.

7. The appellant further argued that no cogent evidence was adduced by the complainant to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle which needed total replacement or refund of the entire amount. No expert evidence was adduced in the case in order to arrive at a conclusion that the complainant is entitled to refund of the entire amount due to the manufacturing defects of the vehicle.

8. The main contention raised by the appellant in this case is that the complainant / 1st respondent had purchased the vehicle on 07.08.2013. But the 1st opposite party became a partner of KSM Green Motors onl