The dealer issuing the extended warranty on behalf of the Insurance Company was held liable for the defects in the car during the extended warranty period.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, (P.M) - Sh. K. Venugopal, the complainant purchased Fiat Punto Emotion make car on August 30th, 2009 from M/s. Tayal India Motors (P) Ltd.-OP-2. In addition to the manufacture warranty of two years, an extended warranty of further two years was obtained by the complainant. It means it was having total warranty for four years.

2. The first service was effected on Nov. 24th 2009. It transpired that it was consuming excess oil. There was also strange noise which came from the engine and the body parts started showing signs of unusual rusting. It is alleged that M/s Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. and M/s Tayal India Motors (P) Ltd.- OPs- 1 & 2, failed to rectify the defects.

3. This complaint was filed on 15.01.2013 i.e. during the extended warranty period. Mr. Vikas Kumar Gupta from Equal Service, Pune representative of M/s Fiat India Automobiles, inspected the car on 27.09.2012 and found as many as fourteen defects in the car, which are detailed in the order of the State Commission. OP-1 contended that the total assembly of the car engine was replaced with the new one. None appeared on behalf of OP-2. They were proceeded against ex-parte. This shows arrogance on the part of M/s Tayal India Motors (P) Ltd. -OP-2. The District Forum came to the conclusion:-

"7. Both the respondents are, therefore, directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One lac only to the complainant towards further repairs and Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One lac only) for mental harassment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which they will be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rs. Two lacs only) @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 15.1.2013, till the date of actual payments. The respondents are further directed to pay Rs. 2200/- ( Rs. Two Thousand two hundred only) to the complainant as litigation expenses. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room".

4. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the OP-1. We have heard the counsel for the parties. It must be borne in mind that the above said defects cropped up during the extended warranty. Consequently, OP-1 cannot be saddled with any amount. We accept the appeal filed by him and set aside the order passed against him.

5. The order was also passed against OP-2. OP-2 is liable for the extended warranty. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the extended warranty was granted by United India Insurance Co. and they cannot be held responsible for the same. He contended that unfortunately United India Insurance Company was not made a party in this case. We have seen the booklet under caption, "Enhanced Warranty". It clearly mentions, "This warranty is valid for 24 months after the expiration of manufacturers warranty". There is certificate by the dealer appended alongwith this extended warranty, which reads as follows:-

"I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this Vehicle is mechanically sound and of roadworthy condition, and that any mechanical faults at the time of sale that fall within the scope of this Policy have been corrected and the Vehicle has had a pre-delivery inspection. Accordingly, this Policy is hereby issued on behalf of the Company".

6. It is clear that the petitioner had issued this warranty on behalf of the Insurance Company. It is also interesting to note that in a corner, in very small words, which one can hardly be read, a stamp of United India Insurance Co. appears. This is not signed by any official of the United India Insurance Company. OP-2 has signed this warranty on behalf of the Insurance Company. It is also mentioned that the "Dealership appointed/authorized by the distributor as part of the Tata/Fiat Network". It also mentions that the supplying dealer that sold the vehicle or authorised repair Centre of the dealership/manufacturer. It is clear that from 2010, the car was having defects. The Res