By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the case is as follows:<br /> The complainant purchased a diesel tempo vehicle produced by M/S Mahindra and Mahindra from the 2nd Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party is the authorized service center and agent of 2nd Opposite Party in Wayanad. The vehicle was purchased on 22.2.03 and was having a warranty for one year from the date of purchase. On 11.1.04, the vehicle while on its way to Kannur District developed engine trouble at Periyaghat and became unable to be driven further. The matter was informed to the Opposite Parties and since the engine trouble developed at a place where there was no workshop, the 2nd Opposite Party instructed the complainant to engage a local <br /> Contd...2)<br /> 2.<br /> workshop at Manathavady to find out the reason for the trouble. So a technician from St. Joseph's Automobiles at Manathavady was deputed to inspect the vehicle. The technician opined that the valve of the engine was broken and that the vehicle should be towed to the work shop to get engine overhauling to be done. The 2nd Opposite Party was informed of the difficulty for getting the vehicle towed to the workshop at that time. Then the 2nd Opposite Party instructed the complainant to remove the engine from the vehicle and entrusted with the 1st Opposite Party for repair. The technician of 1st Opposite Party advised the complainant to take the engine to the 2nd Opposite Party for repair as they could not do it at Kalpetta. So the complainant had taken the engine to the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party demanded Rs.5,000/- for the purchase of spare parts not covered by the warranty. After repairing the engine, the 2nd Opposite Party insisted on payment of service charges. So the complainant was forced to pay the service charges, the complainant had brought the engine and sought the service of the workshop at Manathavady to fit the engine to the vehicle. The complainant had paid Rs.2,500/- to the workshop for the same. Besides the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3,900/- towards the transportation charge of the engine. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opposite parties claiming the amount and they had refused it. The Opposite Parties are legally bound to repair the vehicle free of charge within the warranty period. The Opposite Parties insisted on paying repair charges and this amount to deficiency in service. The complainant had incurred loss and damages to an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite parties appeared and filed version. The 1st Opposite Party stated that <br /> there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 1st Opposite Party. The complainant has never approached the 1st opposite party at any point of time. So the 1st Opposite Party is unnecessarily impleaded in this case. The 2nd Opposite Party states that the complainant is <br /> Contd......3)<br /> 3.<br /> not a 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.1986. The vehicle was purchased for commercial and business purpose of M/s. Prasanth Auto Agro products engaged in the production and supply of food products and edible spices. The 2nd Opposite Party denies that they were informed about the complaint of the vehicle. The complainant had not contacted the 1st or 2nd Opposite Party before bringing the engine parts to this opposite party. The engine was dismantled and opened by the complainant without the knowledge and information of the opposite parties from an unauthorised workshop and the complainant has forfeited his right to claim warranty benefits offered by the manufacture. Because of the unauthorised work done by the unauthorised workshop, the opposite party was not able to understand the actual position of the engine and to know whether there was any defect at all or as to what was to be properly done to rectify the defects. The engine was brought to the 2nd Opposite Parties in a fully dismantled and opened out condition bundled in a gunny bag. Since the engine was opened and dismantled, the opposite party clearly informed the complainant that he would not be entitled to get the warranty benefits. After the repairing work the opposite party was given bill which was paid by the complainant and engine was taken by the complainant. The opposite party is not responsible for any damages suffered by the complainant and hence not liable to pay any compensation and there is no justification in the alleged estimate of Rs.50,000/- as damages. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. The complainant was examined as PW1. The owner of the St. Joseph's Workshop is examined as PW2. Documents were marked on the side of the complainant as Ext.A1 to A4. A mechanic from the 2nd Opposite Party was examined as OPW1 and documents were marked as Ext.B1 to B4 on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. The points to be decided are as follows:<br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation or costs.<br /> Contd.....4) <br /> 4 <br /> 5. Point No. 1: The warranty conditions are not applicable to the vehicles which are repaired outside an authorised Mahindra Service Station or which has been attended, modified or built upon in any way or which has been subject to misuse, negligence or accident. Hence the contention of the Opposite Parties are that the engine has been dismantled and repaired from unauthorised workshop. OP W1 has stated that the engine was brought to there in a fully dismantled and opened up condition. PW2 has stated that the engine was taken to his workshop even though he denied that it was not repaired from there. There was no necessity to take the engine to the workshop for any other purpose other than repairing. So it is found that the complainant has acted against the warranty conditions. The complainants contention is that the opposite parties had sanctioned the repairing of machine from an unauthorised work shop, but no supporting evidence for that. So the 1st point is decided against the complainant.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No. 2: The point No.1 being found against the complainant, further discussion on Point No.2 is not necessary. So the complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open forum on the day of 10th March, 2008.