By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to repair the vehicle of complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and Rs.20,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a TATA ACE 21P vehicle from 2^nd Opposite Party in the year 2011 November and it is registered in Regional Transport Office, Wayanad as KL 12F 8450 on 17.11.2011. The company gave one year warranty to the vehicle. The vehicle started somany complaints after 4 months of its purchase. On 19.10.2012, the vehicle started engine Complaint and the 1^st Opposite party repaired the vehicle and collected Rs.7,377/- as charge. On 31.10.2012, 21.01.2013, 23.12.2013, 31.12.2013 the vehicle became Complaint and the 1^st opposite party repaired it and the 1^st Opposite party collected charge for each and every service . On 08.07.2014, the vehicle shows hearing sound from engine at Meenangadi while running and Engine block cracked and the vehicle totally damaged. The vehicle was then taken to 1^st Opposite party's centre by towing and on examination, it was found that the engine block, cylinder, piston, connecting rod, crank shaft, valves were damages. The 1^st Opposite Party demanded huge amount for repair. The Complainant informed the 1^st Opposite party to repair it free of service since the vehicle was repaired on several occasions during warranty period and the damage sustained to the vehicle due to deficiency in service. The Opposite parties denied free service to the vehicle. Then the Complainant took the vehicle to his shed. The case of complainant is that there is continuous cause of action and he is entitled for free service . Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were served to Opposite Parties and 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties appeared and filed version. 3^rd Opposite party did not appeared and did not file version and 3^rd Opposite party is set exparte. In the version of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite party, 1^st and 2^nd Opposite party contended that the vehicle is used by the Complainant for commercial purpose and the Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act. The Complaint barred by limitation. Since the vehicle is purchased on 31.10.2011 and the complaint is filed after 3 years. The vehicle comes with a warranty of one year or 36000 km whichever is earlier. The repairs done to the vehicle is normal running repair only. No manufacturing defect is there to the vehicle. At the time of filing complaint, the vehicle covered more than 160000 kms in just 3 years. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties denied all other allegations in the complaint. The Complainant brought the vehicle to 1^st Opposite party on 26.08.2014 due to an accident repair at 160666 kms and wanted to repair the vehicle with warranty. When denied , the Complainant shouted and gone back. This complaint is filed due to that vengeance. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A29. The Complainant purchased the vehicle on 31.10.2011 and the piston ring assembly of the vehicle is damaged and changed on 19.10.2012. The vehicle have warranty up to 31.10.2012. So the piston ring Assembly changed within warranty period. All other services done by the Complainant before 19.10.2012 are only normal running services. The 1^st Opposite Party charged Rs.5,854/- and Rs.1,523/- for that services within warranty period. From the evidences, it is seen that the Complainant had repaired the vehicle continuously within the warranty period somany occasion. The Complainant applied for taking expert commission and the expert commissioner inspected the vehicle and reported that the piston of the vehicle is broken in more than 3 pieces, connecting rod bended and the connecting rod end was broken in crank shaft side. The titled connected rod was deeply impacted in the crank case of the engine. A large hole was formed in the engine crank case. The commissioner reported that the breaking and impact was not from the external source. The Commissioner stated that there is manufacturing defect noted in the piston. The commissioner was examined before the Forum as CW1 and CW1 deposed before the Forum in cross examination that the crank case of a vehicle have existence in the whole life time of the vehicle and it is manufacturing in such a way. 1^st Opposite party is examined as OPW1 and OPW1 deposed in cross examination that the vehicle is serviced for 6 occasions during warranty period and these repairs are engine related repairs. OPW1 deposed that the engine block of the vehicle will have life time existence. The OPW1 also stated that there is no symptoms of external force over engine block. The Commissioner stated that there is manufacturing defect to the piston. So by analysing the entire evidence, the Forum found that the Complainant did not get life existence to the engine block and crank case and the crank case is broken into pieces due to the manufacturing defect of the piston. During trial, the Complainant filed IA 18/15 praying for a permission to replace the engine of the vehicle for the purpose of running the vehicle. Notice given to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties did not file counter and did not object the petition. Hence IA 18/15 is allowed and Complainant submitted that Engine is replaced by him. The total cost of repayment which the Forum estimates for an engine replacement of TATA ACE 21P vehicle is Rs.30,000/- and the Complainant is entitled to get the same. On analysing the entire evidence. The Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties in giving proper services to the vehicle. The Complainant have continuous cause of action in this case and no limitation will apply. The vehicle is found to be used for self earning of Complainant and it is not used for commercial purpose. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of complaint, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- being the replacement charge which the Complainant paid after replacement of Engine as per order of Forum in IA 18/15. The 1^st and 3^rd Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties shall comply the order within one months from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the day of 22^nd September 2015.

Date of Filing:28.10.2014.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Sojan. Complainant.

CW1. Premdas Work shop Superintendent,

Government Poliy Technique, Meenangadi.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Arun. T.V.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Bill No.2073. dt:16.03.2012.

A2. Bill No.2224. dt:12.05.2012.

A3. Bill No.2296 dt:08.06.2012.

A4. Bill No.5300. dt:08.06.2012.

A5. Bill No.5792. dt:14.09.2012.

A6. Bill No.2729. dt:14.09.2012.

A7. Bill No.2446. dt:19.10.2012.

A8. Bill No.6048. dt:19.10.2012.

A9. Bill No.6064. dt:31.10.2012.

A10. Bill No.2485. dt:31.10.2012.

A11. Bill No.2843. dt:15.11.2012.

A12. Bill No.6093. dt:15.11.2012.

A13. Bill No.1996. dt:20.11.2012.

A14. Bill No.3104. dt:21.01.2013.

A15. Bill No.6226. dt:21.01.2013.

A16 Bill No.355. dt:23.12.2013.

A17. Bill No.4443. dt:23.12.2013.

A18. Bill No.7273. dt:23.12.2013.

A19 Tax Invoice. dt:30.12.2013.

A20. Tax Invoice. dt:26.08.2014.

A21. Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A22. Copy of Certificate of Fitness.

A23. Copy of Tax Licence.

A24. Copy of Pollution under control certificate.

A25. Copy of Certificate of Insurance.

A26. Acknowledgement.

A27. Temporary Receipt. dt:22.10.2011.

A28. Copy of Vehicle Particulars.

A29. Operator's Service Book.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

Nil.