Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears  on behalf of respondent.  

         2. This appeal has been filed U/S-41 of Consumer protection Act 2019(Hearin after called the Act) 2019 against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission, Cuttack. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.

               3. The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that the complainant purchased motor cycele Hero honda pleasure from O.P No.1 for a consideration of Rs. 36,941/-. Subsequently the vehicle become defective even after three services rendered time to time. It is alleged interalia that after  repair of the vehicle the O.P demanded Rs. 3298.48/- towards spare parts and labour charges but complainant objected the demand because it is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Therefore, alleging the same he filed the complaint petition.

             4. The O.P filed written version stating that they have denied entire  allegation but filed counter objections towards repair cost of money of Rs.3298.48 and interest from 27-11-2006 till realisation. However, the complainant did not take back the vehicle inspite of offer by the O.P but filed false case.           

      5. After hearing both partias Learend District forum passed the following order:

        “ Both the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( ten thousand ) only each to the complainant towards compensation and O.P No.1 further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- ( two thoudansd ) only to the complainant towards cost of litigation after deduction of interest upon the amount of Rs. 3298/- counted from 26/11/2006 to 10/08/2007. The order is to carry out within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take necessary stesp fro realization of awarded amount from the O.Ps. This cae disposed of accordingly.”

     6. Leared counsel for the appellant submitted that the Learend District Commission commited error in law by directing the O.P by not considering the materials and pleadings submitted by the O.P with proper perspective. According to him the vehicle has been repaired as per Job card, with satisfication of the Complainant. It is further submitted that in the mean time vehicle has been released by them but the payment has not been received. Leared District Comission passed order to release the vehicle on receipt of money. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. 

    7. Considered the submission of the appellant, Perused the DFR & impugned order.

    8. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased Hero Honda Pleasure  from O.P No.1 . It is also not in dispute that the vehicle has visited work shop of O.P No.1 for free service and free  service has been rendered by the O.P. It is also admitted fact that the vehicele has also been released by the appellant to the complainant. Only question raised whether there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

     9. Job card produced by both parties clearly shows that the vehicle has visited for free service and there is no any deficiency in service or any defec