SUVIR BARAN MITRA Vs. MAHADEVA CAR PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dtd. 17/11/2015 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattishgarh (in short "the State Commission) in First Appeal No.485/2014, whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

(2.) Case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that on 2/1/2013 he purchased Renault Plus car bearing registration No.C.G.10 A 0428 from Respondent No.1 Opposite/Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 for a consideration of Rs.6,18,500.00. On 19/9/2013, the Petitioner brought the vehicle by towing to the workshop. On checking, it was found that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to driving of the vehicle without engine oil. The Respondents demanded repair charges despite the fact that the car was within the warranty period. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer:-

(3.) The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Parties by filing the written statement. Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 3 filed joint written statement and Opposite Party No.2 filed separate written statement and contested the Complaint in the same manner stating that the Complainant for the first time brought the vehicle to the service centre of Opposite Party No.3 on 22/8/2013 with the complaint of low pick up. On checking, it was found that the engine oil chamber of the vehicle was damaged and the entire oil had leaked from the engine, due to which the pick-up got low. The Complainant did not allow opening of engine, therefore, only oil chamber of the vehicle was replaced and the car was returned to the Complainant to his satisfaction. On 19/9/2013, the Complainant again brought the vehicle by towing to the workshop. On checking, it was found that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to driving of the vehicle without engine oil, because earlier the Complainant did not permit checking of the vehicle by opening of engine. Consequently, the benefit of warranty was not given to the Complainant due to negligence of the Complainant. Opposite Party No.2 stated that the allegation of the Complainant related to the repairing work of the car. There was no allegation that defective car was given to him. Opposite Party No.2 was, therefore, not liable for any deficiency in service, if any.