Complainant/appellant purchased a Tata Sumo car for Rs.4,16,600/- from M/s Commercial Automobiles Private Limited, respondent No.1 herein, which was financed by M/s Kailash Auto Finance, respondent No.2 herein.  Respondents No.3 & 4 are the manufacturer of the car.  Complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging that during the warranty period, the car

-2-

started giving trouble and the respondents failed to rectify the defect.  He sought compensation of Rs.10 Lacs.

          The State Commission by the impugned order has dismissed the complaint.  The State Commission in para 7 & 8 of its order has held as under:

“7.     No evidence has been adduced by the complainant regarding defect in tyres.  His raising grievance in this regard after running the vehicle for 8 months and 47644 kms was of no consequence.

8.      Coming to the alleged defects in the vehicle, again it is noted that the complainant adduced no evidence whatsoever showing that he got the routine service done to his vehicle at some unauthorized service station of Telco at the given intervals already stated hereinabove.  He seems to have run the vehicle during all this period covering thousands of kilometers without getting the same serviced at the regular intervals.  On the contrary it was found that the brake rod of the vehicle was got replaced and fitted at some wayside repair shop.  The rod so replaced was also duplicate not of Telco make.  Obviously, the vehicle was used contrary to the terms and conditions of the warranty and the opposite parties were therefore not responsible to remove the defects and replace the damaged parts free of cost.  No deficiency can therefore be attributed to the opposite parties on this count also.”

-3-

          The appellant had run the car for 47,644 km in a period of              eight months.  He got the break rod of the vehicle replaced and fitted by some wayside repair shop.  The rod was duplicate and was not a ‘Telco’ make.  He had run the vehicle for 47,644 km without getting it serviced at the regular intervals.  His only complaint was regarding the wear and tear of the tyres and the battery.  On inspection, the battery was found to be all right and the tyres were not covered in terms of the warranty.

            We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.   Dismissed.  No costs.