Mrs. Sandra Vaze Correia, Member—The complainant is a businessman residing at Vasco da Gama. The opposite party No. 1 is the dealer of the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are manufacturers of “Tata Indica” vehicles.

2. In a nutshell, it is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Tata Indica vehicle model January, 2000 for a sum of Rs. 3,13,178/- on 24.4.2000. Right from the day he purchased the suit car registered under GA-06/A-6786, he could not use the same for his daily work as it was not functioning smoothly and had many major manufacturing/production defects as well as minor problems. The suit vehicle was referred to the opposite party No. 1 and other service points of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 for a total of nineteen times between 6.6.2000 and 23.3.2001. Due to the alleged defects, the vehicle was kept for a period of 70 days at the various service outlets of the opposite parties.

3. It was alleged that the five tyres of the suit vehicle wore out when the mileage was 14,349 kms. on account of which the complainant had to replace the said five tyres and also pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards other charges. Again, at 28,334 kms. the tyres of the suit vehicle wore out and had to be replaced.

4. Due the above defects and the opposite parties failure to rectify the same in time, the complainant suffered heavy financial losses towards inability to use the vehicle. Consequent loss of business and mental torture and agony.

5. The complainant addressed a letter dated 10.4.2001 to the opposite party No. 1 and surrendered the suit vehicle to the opposite party No. 1 on the same day. The suit vehicle is lying at the service station of the opposite party No. 1 since 10.4.2001. The opposite party No. 1 replied to the said letter and informed that the opposite party No. 2 would look into the matter, however no response was forthcoming. Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice dated 7.6.2001 to the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the said vehicle by allotting a new vehicle or alternatively to refund the sum of Rs. 3,13,178/- and a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards mental tension and loss of business. However the opposite parties did not comply with the said notice. Thereafter, the complainant issued another legal notice dated 12.7.2001. However, no action was taken by the opposite parties other than replying to the said notice.

6. The complainant has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the suit vehicle or alternatively to refund the cost of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 3,13,178/-. The complainant also prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards damages and further loss at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day.

7. Upon being noticed, the opposite parties filed their written version. It was denied that the complainant resided at the address mentioned in the complaint. The complainant got the vehicle registered in Goa in violation of the law and with the intention to evade higher taxes in the State of Karnataka. The complainant misrepresented that he was a resident of Vasco at the time of purchase, when actually he is a resident of Belgaum. It was denied that the vehicle could not be used by the complainant for his daily work or that the same was not functioning smoothly from the day of purchase. It was denied that the vehicle had any major manufacturing or production defects or that it had any minor defects. It was submitted that the suit vehicle had covered 1,500 kms. at the time of first servicing on 6.6.2000 when the vehicle reported at Manickbag Automobiles, at Hubli on 15.7.2000 it had covered an additional mileage of 6000 kms. at that time it was noticed that the vehicle had missed the mandatory servicing to be done after covering 5,000 kms which was a condition precedent for the warranty of the vehicle. At the said workshop, it was observed that the vehicle had been used in a rough manner and that it had met with an accident.