DATE OF DISPOSAL: 09.01.2024.

PER:   SMT. SARITRI PATTANAIK, MEMBER (W):

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission. 

2. The complainant is a self-employed and purchased a car for his personal purposes vide Model Toyota Etios GD (M), VIN:MBJB49BT100137143-0716, Engine No: INDIA03652,Ext. colour: White for Rs.8,31,922.97 paisa vide Invoice No:2016-535/Dated: 05.10.2016 from O.P.No.1 whose registration No: OD-02-AE-6667. The complainant purchased said vehicle through Toyota Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. Cuttack i.e. O.P.No.4 situated in the premises of O.P. No.1 under hypothecation basis and paying the EMI regularly. But the purpose of the purchase of vehicle was defeated due to defective engine of the vehicle. The complainant has handed over the vehicle to O.P.No.1 on 13.03.2021 at 12.30P.M. at Odometer reading: 109,351 with a service request that “engine oil consumption check-up, as per egtdeba san instruction, check dry and weight condition compression test, tirbi charger shaft play check-up, oil quantity measure, check all parameter oil consumption”  and for which the O.P.No.1 has issued Job order: GSJ21-04626(p). The O.P.No.1 neither checked the vehicle appropriately as per prescribed standard by the O.P.No.2 till date nor issued the part replacement estimated quotation for check up rather demanding orally to confirm the payment of money to replace certain parts of the vehicle apart from car sanitizer and vehicle check up of Rs.687/- whereas the extended warranty period of the vehicle was in force till 31.08.2021. The standard warranty provided by the Company since the date of purchase of vehicle bearing Regd. No: OD-02-AE-6667 was completed on 23.08.2019 but prior to expiry of said manufacturer’s standard warranty period, the complainant again purchased the extended warranty on 31.08.2017when the odometer reading was 40102 Kms and for which the complainant  has paid the product final price of Rs.18,526/-only including IGST @18% which is valid up to 31.08.2021 or 180,000Kms(which ever comes earlier) i.e. extended coverage in (Date-Km) from Assurant Automotive warranty Solutions (India) private Limited and the said company has issued a Certificate-cum-invoice vide Certificate Number TK144984/dated 31.08.2017. After several requests, the O.P.No.1 have rejected the extended warranty of the vehicle by concealing the material fact about the running status of vehicle and on demand, the O.P.No.1 has issued an email dated 13.04.2021remarked that “Extended Warranty Rejection Note OD02AE6667 (ETIOS GD)”to the complainant. Since the date of purchase the above mentioned vehicle shows the problem of High Engine Oil consumption and the complainant complaint several times to O.P.No.1 regarding it but till date no tangible steps taken to remove the defect in engine. It speaks volume against both the O.P.No.1 & 2 and it is also tantamount to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.  The O.P.No.1 has not recorded the services as per owner’s manual service records and warranty booklet issued by the O.P.No.2 while purchasing the vehicle in the year 2016 which was generally mandatory nature and the O.P.No.1 never informed about the alternative recording of the services of the car. When and where the complainant has handed over his vehicle for servicing, the O.P.No.1 have not provided the appropriate services within stipulated period rather returned the vehicle after several approaches or after 30 days by keeping it in open sky without covering and for which the complainant sustained huge mental dissatisfaction each and every time about the colour of the car getting faded day by day.   During the warranty period, O.P.No.1 has charged money for parts and services to the complainant and in constraint he has paid the demanded money to O.P.No.1 also. In view of the repair and services provided by O.P.No.1 till date, it leads that the O.Ps sold a defective manufactured car wherein the engine were not functioning properly and the complainant visited several time to O.P.No.1’s service centre and MSV at Berhampur for check-up and repair the defectives, which the car is having inbuilt manufacturing defects and the O.Ps have sold it to the complainant by charging price of the actual new vehicle in the year 2016. The complainant is paying EMI to Toyota Finance Co. O.P. No.3 each and every month since the date of purchase of the vehicle regularly. For the above acts of O.P.No.1 and 2 the complainant is suffering from irreparable agonies like financially, physically and mentally and to redress the grievance, the complainant already has incurred huge amount more than Rs. 55,000/- towards visits to O.P.No.1 during those period since the date of handover the vehicle, communication through online, over phone and consulting with counsel for legal action but till date the vehicle is neither repaired nor service it by the O.Ps. The complainant has issued registered advocate notice to the O.P.No.1 and 2 on 21.04.2021. Due to Covid-19 second wave and lockdown and shutdown and restriction of public conveyance by Government of Odisha, the complainant could not able to meet the O.P.No.1 but replied accordingly to the advocate of the O.P. No.1. Since the date of purchase till covering of 1,09,315 Kms, the complainant has complained and registered the complaint for services 10 times specifically on ‘high oil consumption’ with O.P.No.1 & 2 and the O.P.No.1 has kept the vehicle in his service centre to remove the defects for months together and it can be clearly found, if it will verify the history of the vehicle in question. But each time the O.P.No.1 has failed to rectify the defects in vehicle appropriately at its service centre and MSV as well. The O.P.No.1 at 104287 kms on 30.01.2021 instead of checked the EOC rate and diagnosis as per EOC guidelines handover the vehicle to the complainant but the O.P.No.1 never advised to the complainant in writing in the service book or any other form/sms or electronic form the stipulated condition to the complainant for handing over of the vehicle. The complainant specifically pointed out the defects and complained about ‘High consumption of Engine oil’ not after running of vehicle 109000kms but just after one year of running of vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD02AE6667 since December 2017 to the O.P.No.1 and 2 on following dates and the kilometers of running as recorded by the odometer of the vehicle but all in vain.

Replying to the letter dated 07.05.2021 the complainant specifically stated that, it was reported to O.P.No.1 & 2’s service unit and MSV as per schedule date and kilometer. The vehicle which is in premises of the O.P.No.1 custody neither covered 180,000 kms nor was completed the statutory date i.e. dated 31.08.2021. As per the terms and conditions of the said extended warranty certificate, the extended warranty was in force because of the vehicle is not violate any conditions of the said certificate of extended warranty. In this context the O.P.No,.1 should have provided the appropriate services to the complainant in accordance to the said extended warranty certificate Number: TK144984 dated 31.08.2017. The excuses written by the O.P.No.1 in its reply to the complainant are not at all the actual reasonable reasons to repudiate the extended warranty. Apart from these the complainant even tried to redress this grievance, approached to the O.P.No.1 & 2 through the Consumer Counseling Centre, Ganjam and filed a complaint vide No. 31 dated 18.06.2021. The O.P.No.1 & 2 was acknowledged the complaint through email but did not considered the warranty extended period policy of the manufacturer repudiated the claim of the complainant and the O.P.No.1 has tried to escape from the responsibilities by shifting of liabilities upon the O.P.No.2 and the complainant. The O.P.No.1 has been misleading the complainant by issuing different and contradictory statement in writing in different date and time and repudiated the claim of the complainant intentionally, willfully and deliberately. Through the O.P.No.1 and 2 are totally failed to redress on the date and due to defective service of the O.P.No.1 since 12.11.2017 now the complainant is suffering from agonies like mentally, physically and financially which is unaccountable. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P.No.1 &2 to replace the manufacturing defective car vide Regd. No. OD02AE 6667, to pay the EMI along with interest as fixed by the O.P.No.3, to provide extended warranty facilities to the complainant by O.P.No.3 and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- in the best interest of justice.

3. The O.P.No.1 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the complaint case laid by the complainant before this Commission is not maintainable either in law or in fact. The complainant has deliberately dragged the O.P.No.1 into this litigation by abusing the process of law and procedure having his own guilty and fault as such said case is no way maintainable rather liable to be dismissed. In para-2 &3 “defect due to defective engine of the vehicle” is false, baseless and imaginary as well as cock and bull story. In reply to the aforesaid statements, if any company defect of a purchased vehicle occurs or detected after elapse of warranty period and no reply to the aforesaid statements, if any company defect of a purchased vehicle occurs or detected after elapse of warranty period and no service has been provided by the service provider then the aggrieved party can claim against the principal/manufacturer and the warranty company if any, but in the instant case in hand, in spite of whispering about defective engine of the vehicle, he has only to make party to the manufacturer and warranty company to fulfill his claim instead of making service provider as party.  In this regard it is hit by the mis-joinder of necessary party. Rather the case is not maintainable against the O.P.No.1 for better understanding and clarification the complainant as per standard warranty period of the vehicle laid down in the service manual book has not handed over the vehicle before the authorized service station in time and also not adopted proper replacement of the minor parts of the vehicle at the time of service of the vehicle. Though the facilities as per the standard warranty provided by the manufacturer towards service of the vehicle stipulates 3 years stating from the date of purchase or 100000 KMs which is earlier, reflected in the service manual book, but the complainant deviating such standard warranty rules brought the vehicle to the work shop having odometer reading as 109351 KMs raised a request to check the high engine oil consumption of vehicle, which is willful and deliberate negligence of the complainant.  Further, pursuant to instruction of MSV (Mobile service van), the complainant has not brought the vehicle to the service station in time after it runs for another 3000 KMs, rather he brought the vehicle after it has run for more than 5000 KMs causing damage to the vehicle, which is self-made negligence and failure of the complainant for getting proper service from the O.P.No.1. Further the complainant made a complaint on the odometer reading as 96,371 KMs before MSV after running of 41,322 KMs on dated 17.01.2020. It clearly reveals that the engine is good one. The engine is not a defective one. There is no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. The problem was occurs only for the rash and negligent driving. As such no liability occurs for damage upon O.P.No.1 in any manner.  In para-4 to 6 of the claim case completely baseless and fallacious as well as misleading to this Commission. The O.P.No.1 has no manner of liability for damage cause by negligent manner of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of Toyota True warranty policy, the standard warranty of the vehicle of the complainant expired after 100000 KMs and in such event; he ought to have approach before extension Warranty Company. The complainant committing substantial fault by not bring the vehicle for service in proper time, and sought for extension warranty through O.P.No.1. After that the said request is rejected by O.P.No.3 as per terms and conditions laid down under the heading of “what is not covered” in column -13 of their policy as “failure caused by negligent, abuse or improper servicing or any repairs require as a result of continued operation of the Toyota vehicle, once a defect or failure or fault has occurred”. The role of the dealer cum service provider only to act as an intermediary in between the customer and the extension warranty company and have only responsibility for servicing and repairing of vehicle brought before its work shop subject to & the extension warranty company and have only responsibility for servicing and repairing of vehicle brought before its work shop subject to condition that such vehicle is having under valid warranty. In such case the O.P.No.1 submits claim before the warranty company towards repair of vehicle. Accepting and rejecting of the claim is completely depended upon the warranty company as per their terms and conditions. In the instant caqse, the complainant sought for extension warranty after elapse of standard warranty though the O.P.No.1 which was already rejected by the O.P.No.3 , in such event, the O.P.No.1 has no role to check the vehicle nor have the duty to repair the same without proper instruction/permission. In para-7 of the case, the complainant admitted that he has got knowledge regarding the High Engine oil consumption from the date of purchase. The complainant has the date of knowledge regarding the problem of his vehicle since the date of purchase i.e. on dt.05.10.2016 and the cause of action arose from that day. But after elapse of 5 years, the complainant visited to the service station and raised complaints to repair his vehicle showing high engine oil consumption. Prior to that, he reported 4 times before the MSV. On every time the service engineer recommended the complainant to take the vehicle to the authorized workshop. The MSV provides regular basic checkup. They have not equipped with complete equipment for major repair and servicing of the vehicle. Lastly on dated 06.01.2021 the complainant visited to the MSV having odometer reading of 104287 KMs and raised the same issue of high engine oil consumption before the service engineer of MSV. After basic checkup the service engineer recommended the complainant to take his vehicle to the dealership cum workshop after it runs for another 3000 KMs. That means the complainant have to take his vehicle just after run for 107287 KMs on his odometer reading. But the complainant took his vehicle on the odometer reading of 109351 KMs by willfully neglecting and violating the instruction of the service engineer which will be calculated as after running his vehicle for more than 2064 KMs for his negligence the complainant caused damage to his vehicle. The complainant intentionally, willfully and deliberately neglected by not doing periodical service of his vehicle. In para-9 and 10 is baseless allegation. It is equally important to mention here that the complaint brought his vehicle for service on dated 13.03.2021. Since then he has intentionally left his vehicle on the parking of the O.P.No.1 in the terms and conditions of the job card provided by the O.P.No.1. It is clearly mentioned that the customer have to pay Rs.200/- per day as parking charge to the O.P.No.1 for his vehicle. The complainant intentionally and deliberately parked his vehicle irreparable loss of money more than Rs.50,000/- and so also harassed for the ill motive of the complainant. In para-11 are uncommon statement made by the complainant. In reply that it is very much ludicrous and so also ridiculous to say that the meaning of free service does not mean that everything will be free of cost. It is a common sense that the customer has to pay for engine oil, oil filter, air filter etc. from his side and the service charges and other charges will be borne by the manufacturer.  It is started that the making a whole for himself, for better clarification it is stated that in spite of well aware of the fact of expiry of standard warranty he is not liable for getting facility of extension warranty after its rejection.  The complainant with an adamant attitude kept his vehicle in a forcible manner place in the parking yard of the O.P.No.1 with illegal demanding compulsory repair of his vehicle at any cost or any manner. It is stated that for his own mistake and latches of the parties neither manufacturer nor the service provider nor dealer have any accountable or liability in any manner. In the instant case having deliberate fault and mistake on the part of the complainant, his claim raised before O.P.No.1 is no way permissible or acceptable. Besides the terms and conditions between the O.P.No.1 and the complainant stipulates in the invoice that “All disputes shall be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of the court in the city where the dealer operates”. So in this context dealership of the vehicle of the complainant within the city and jurisdiction of the Cuttack, for which this Commission lacks jurisdiction to try the above noted complain. Hence the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the case with heavy exemplary cost in the interest of justice.

4. The O.P.No.2 filed his written version through his advocate. It is stated that no statement, allegation, contention, submission, premise, or hypothesis contained in the complaint should be deemed to have been admitted merely because it has not been specifically denied. All statements, allegations, contentions, submissions, premises and hypothesis should be deemed denied unless expressly admitted in this reply. The dealers purchase the vehicle from the answering O.P. on payment of full price and thereafter, the vehicle are sold by the dealers to the end customers. All the issued relating to booking, delivery, cancellation, servicing, customer relations etc. are independently handled by dealers. The vehicle purchased by the complainant is a well-established product in the market and the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle, after being satisfied with the condition on the vehicle and its performance. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant in October 2016 and as on date, the vehicle has covered more than one lakh KMs. The vehicle has been used for more than one lakh KMs in a span of less than 5 years itself establishes that the vehicle suffers from no defects whatsoever. In para 4-6 of the complaint it is submitted that the extended warranty claim was rightly rejected. Firstly visit on 96371 KMs and vehicle delivered under observations for the concern of High Engine Oil Consumption at Mobile service Point Berhampur, second visit of MSV on (99802 KM) for engine oil replacement. Next visited for HEOC on 104287 KM to again mobile service camp where EOC rate was not OK and concerned team informed the complainant to visit workshop for further diagnosis as per EOC guideline (i.e. compression test). However, vehicle was not reported and also vehicle should have been reported after 5000 KM from last EOC visit, but the subject vehicle reported after 6321 KM. Now vehicle has reported to workshop at 109351 KMs. As per the guidelines of the O.P. the complainant should have visited the workshop for diagnosis at 2^nd EOC visit itself (i.e. for compression test and further diagnosis) but the same not followed by the complainant and hence the extended warranty claim was rejected. There are no manufacturing defects in the said vehicle. The subject vehicle has covered more than one lakh KMs within a span of 5 years which further suggests that the vehicle is free from any defects, whatsoever. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect without submitting any expert’s opinion as per Section 38(2) (c) of the Act. It is submitted that the answering O.P. and its authorized dealers are duly providing the services to its esteemed customers to their satisfaction. Even in the present case, the Dealer had offered a discount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as a goodwill gesture towards repair of the vehicle but the complainant did not provide his consent owing to which the vehicle could not be repaired. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the answering O.P. rightly rejected the extended warranty claim for the reason that’s the issue in the vehicle arose due to the negligence of the complainant and there have been no manufacturing defects, whatsoever in the vehicle. Hence the O.P.No.2 prayed to dismiss the case.

5. On the date of hearing the advocate for complainant and op no.1 are present. On perusal of record, it is appeared that sufficient opportunity have provided to all the parties for final hearing. The case was heard in part in the last date. We heard at length on the point of issues of the complaint from the parties today. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written argument and document available in the case record. The complainant is a self-employed and purchased a car for his personal purposes vide Model Toyota Etios GD (M), VIN:MBJB49BT100137143-0716, Engine No: INDIA03652,Ext. colour: White for Rs.8,31,922.97 paisa vide Invoice No:2016-535/Dated: 05.10.2016 from O.P.No.1 whose registration No: OD-02-AE-6667. The car is given defects about “High consumption of engine oil” and frequent checkup on 12.11.2017, 18.01.2018, 17.01.2020, 04.08.2020, 28.09.2020, 30.01.2021 and 13.03.2021. Now the car is kept by the O.P.No.1 for repair. 

On analyzing the evidences adduced by the parties minutely. It is apparent that, the extension warranty certificate Annexure – IV was in enforced when the complainant handed over the vehicle to the op no.1 on 13.03.2021 for repair the high engine oil consumption but subsequently, the op no.3 rejected it as submitted by the op no.1 but no appropriate reasons were intimated to the complainant. It is also revealed that, the op no.3 has not issued any such rejection of the extension warranty to the complainant being a service provider. The case in hand, the written version and written argument of the Op no.1 clearly discloses that, the op no.1 sou motto made itself the intermediary in between the complainant and the op no.3 for providing service of extension warranty. Further, it is apparent that, the op no. 1 & 2 have not filed any expert opinion regarding the High Engine Oil Consumption due to rash and negligence driving by the complainant. As per the extension warranty certificate or standards of warranty card of manufacturer ‘What is not covered’ under TOYOTA TRUE WARRANTY – TERMS & CONDITIONS at page 3 of 3 of Annexure IV filed by the OP no.1 - the extension warranty can be void if, “Failure caused by negligent, abuse or improper serving or any repairs required as a result of continued operation of the Toyota vehicle, once a defect or failure or fault has occurred’. In the instant case, the op 1 admitted that in his written version that, the service provider has not provided appropriate services to the complainant. The case in hand, the dealer, authorized workshop, authorized service centre, MSV everything are one and same person i.e., opposite party no.1. Hence the op no.1 is solely responsible for the deficient services provided to the complainant’s car during these periods in accordance to the Toyota True Warranty – Terms & Conditions under manufacturer’s Standard Warranty and also under Extended Warranty Certificate. And the extension warranty certificate corroborated the same view as op no,1 submitted and the warranty certificate also not covered in such event only. In view of the warranty repairs as mentioned in the extension warranty certificate vide No.:TKI44984/Dated: 31-Aug-2017 it is mandatory to provide benefits under said certificate to the complainant in the instant case by op no. 1 to 3. The warranty repairs specifically stated that, “Warranty repairs must be performed by Toyota authorized dealer only. Toyota dealer will repair or replace any part, which is adjudged as covered under extended warranty, at no charge to customer. [Refer page 3 & 4, Toyota true warranty terms and conditions for details]. Being authorized dealer, the op 1 is liable to provide services to the complainant by detecting actual fault in engine for high oil consumption and make it good the defect. Further the claim of parking charges by the op no.1 is not sustainable in the eye of law as the op 1 itself violated the terms and conditions mentioned in the job card. In view of the principles laid down in Polymat India P. Ltd. and Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors reported in AIR 2005 SC 286 the op no.1 should have strictly followed the contract conditions of job card executed between the parties. It is clearly mentioned in the cl.5 of the terms and conditions of the job card dtd:13.03.2021 filed by the op no.1 on 21.09.2022 that, “(5) Delivery time mentioned in RO is only indicative. Delivery to be taken within 24 hours after vehicle ready intimation, else customer agrees to pay storage charges @ Rs.200 per day and will be made only to the authorized person/s on production of RO.” In the instant case, such situation did not arise as because the op no.1 not issued any repair intimation or RO to the complainant and also not submitted before the Commission for perusal. In the instant case, the op no.1 has not taken any tangible steps in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the job card document and also not advised accordingly rather taken steps vindictively. It is a one-sided contract and claiming of such amount is breach of contract. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court settled the law in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. AbhishekKhanna and Ors., reported in AIR 2021 SC 437that, “finding such one-sided agreements oppressive, the Apex Court has held that the same would constitute an unfair trade practice under the consumer laws in India.” Hence the claim of parking charges by op 1 is ruled out. There is no doubt that the complainant has had to suffer mental agony in taking delivery of defective car after having paid for a brand new car and in taking the car again and again to the service provider/dealer for same cause for repairs i.e., high engine oil consumption. If the vehicle is sent for repair time and again and cannot be repaired, there is no need to further obtain expert opinion for declaring manufacturing defect. In the instant case, the op no. 3 & 4 both have acknowledged the notices from the Commission and the AD cards of both the opposite parties no. 3/dated:25.09.2021 & 4/dated:28.09.2021 were returned after appropriate and sufficient of services of notices which was signed with date bearing the stamp of the opposite parties but both of them are neither appeared in the case nor submit a response or challenge the complainant’s claims, and their failure to participate in the proceedings despite acknowledging the Commission’s notice is considered an acknowledgment of the allegations made against them. On perusal of the case record, it is manifest that there was no claim allegation against the op no. 3 & 4 but indirectly both the op no.3 & 4 are coming under the net of the law for wrongful act done during these periods. The opposite party no.3 has failed to provide appropriate services to the complainant during the extension warranty period. Similarly, the opposite party no.4 also not accepted the EMI from the bank of the complainant as per standing instruction given to his bank by the complainant. And for which, the complainant was faced several untoward problems while clearing dues of loan. The statement of loan account as available in the case record, the op no.4 demanded another amount of Rs.40,000/- as arrear to the complainant. Moreover all the opposite parties are also liable under product liability of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. And for such acts, the complainant sustained harm to his property and the all the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant accordingly.

            On minutely reading of the evidence on affidavit adduced by the complainant on 14.11.2022 how the high engine oil consumption was attacked to the vehicle of the complainant and the authorized service centre i.e., the op no.1 failed to provide the appropriate services to the said vehicle timely and also measurably failed to remove the defects in the engine of the vehicle which is tantamount to deficiency in services and all the opposite parties are liable under product liability.

It is pertinent to mention that in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council Kerala, 2004 SC had held that relationship between the dealer and manufacturer is principal to principal and not as principal and agent. Hence both are liable for their own wrongs.

6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

7. So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, we are convinced that the O.Ps failed to take any effective steps to short out the defect in the car for which the complainant has suffered physically and mentally. As such the complaint is entitled to get cost of litigation since he has hired the services of an advocate for filing his complaint in this Commission and has incurred expenses attending the case.

We have heard the parties at great length. We have seen the material on record. From the material on record, it is clear that the engine of the car was defective and consuming high engine oil time and again. Had this defect occurred by virtue of the complainant's misusing the car, op no.1 would never have accepted responsibility for repair of the engine. It must be remembered that these cars were manufactured in Karnataka. The cars used to be driven down to various places in India by drivers hired by the 2nd opposite party. The engine could only have gone for various reasons like - Oil consumption is sometimes caused by mechanical problems. Seals and gasket, the bearings, cylinders, ring grooves, connecting rods can be worn or damaged. Cylinders that were not honed properly when the engine was built (or rebuilt), incorrect installation of the piston ring, or other improperly installed parts.

In our view, it is shameful that a defective car was sought to be sold as a brand new car. It is further regrettable that, instead of acknowledging the defects, the 1st opposite party chose to deny liability and has contested this matter. Resultantly, the Commission relied upon the principles laid down in JOSE PHILIP MAMPILLIL v. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND ANR. on 27^th January 2004 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/943637/ and Maruti Udyog Ltd v. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra &Anr on 29.03.2006 in Appeal (Civil ) No.: 3734 of 2000 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in http://JUDIS.NIC.IN allowed the case against all the opposite parties.  It is clarified that the liability to pay is, as stated above, joint and several. In the event of the amount not being paid forthwith, and if necessary, by making 2nd Respondent pay initially. It will then be for the 2nd Respondent to claim reimbursement from the 1st Respondent in accordance to the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in NanhakooSah versus Vidhayawati Devi and Ors reported in 2010 (1) CPR 43 such as, ‘in case of defect in vehicle, the liability to pay amount to complainant is joint and several by the dealer and the manufacturer. It was further made clear that, in case dealer pays the amount at the first instance, the same can be recovered by him from manufacturer’, hence they are entitled to do so. Further this Commission relied upon a citation passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Director, General State Transport Haryana and another versus Ashok Kumar Prajapat and another 2023(4) CPR 99 such as:-“ If the present consumer has chosen to come forward to file complaints for such deficiency in service and is able to establish that he has received deficient service, he is entitled to appropriate compensation due to repetitive default on the part of O,.P, rather in such cases O.P. are liable to pay exemplary compensation to the complainant”.

Resultantly, the case is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are directed to repair the car with good roadworthy running condition with free of cost including overhaul of engine and full body paint with necessary tin work on the body of the car and other repairs with and further it is directed to O.Ps to provide extended warranty period for another one year and handed over the same to the complainant at the destination at Berhampur within three months from receipt of this order. Further all the O.Ps who are jointly and severally  liable are directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental and financial suffering since March 2021 to the complainant  within three months  from receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the entire amount along with repair of the car bearing Registration No. OD-02-AE-6667 from the O.Ps with interest @12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the case i.e. on 17.09.2021 till actual date of realization of the same is made under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant is directed not to pay any further amount to the opposite party No.4  and the O.P.No.4 is directed to issue NOC for loan of the vehicle to the complainant within three months from receipt of this order.  

This case is disposed of accordingly.

            The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 09.01.2024.