The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the opposite parties to compensate the complainant for deficiency in service, as evidenced by persistent inherent defects in the purchased vehicle.

ORDER

Smt. A. Radha, Member. - This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act for directing the opposite parties to reimburse Rs. 10,69,299/- with 18% interest and to return Rs. 45,452/- collected for repair charges. Further prayer is to pay Rs. 10 Lakhs towards compensation and cost of proceedings.

2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Volkswagen Vento 1.6 CR MT (High line) Diesel Car from the 1st opposite party on 27/3/2012 for a total amount of Rs. 10,69,299/-. The 1st opposite party is the authorised dealer of 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the car. It is alleged in the complaint that the vehicle was not performing normally and was not of standard quality. The major complaints are such as steering rattling, body creaking noise while running on rubble roads and turns and on curves and bumps. The vehicle covered only 27000 kms. Even after servicing at proper intervals at the authorised service centre of opposite parties, the defects still persisted and increased. The cumulative effect of the defects, there occurred break down of the vehicle due to engine malfunctioning. On 5/12/2012 at about 12.30 am the engine check indication was glowing and abnormal voice heard from the engine. Though informed immediately to the opposite party's customer care the vehicle brought to the service station on the next day. There had inordinate delay in repairing the vehicle. Due to some major defects in the engine side and replacement of necessary parts the complainant incurred Rs. 1,40,000/-. The complainant being a self employed person had to travel extensively. The complainant incurred taxi charges for hiring taxi. As the 1st opposite party was not in a position to return the vehicle after repairs, provided a petrol car with a direction to use the vehicle upto 80 kms per day which was giving 10 km per litre,. The complainant used to travel nearly 200 kms a day and it also caused financial loss to the complainant. The vehicle was ready to be delivered on 24/01/2013 and repair charges came to Rs. 34,216/-. Further an amount of Rs. 11,230/- as rent for the alternate vehicle was charged from the complainant. On 25/01/2013, the vehicle broke down on the way from Trivandrum to Cochin with the same complaint of engine malfunctioning. The request for recovery vehicle was not heeded by 1st opposite party and driven to the service centre and by 6.30 pm the same day returned the vehicle after rectification of defects. On 26/01/2013 the same defect of engine malfunctioning occurred and broke down on the way and taken to the service centre. It is the allegation of the complainant that there is inherent manufacturing defect to the car. Since the opposite parties failed to take the estimate of denting works as per insurance formality, the complainant had to pay Rs. 34,216/- extra for repairing charges. The claim of opposite party was illegal and negligent and the complainant had to suffer financial difficulties. Further the claim raised for Rs. 11,236/- as rent for the alternate vehicle provided was also arbitrary. The vehicle is lying with the service centre of opposite parties since 6/12/2012 except 3 days on which date the complainant was given the car for usage after repairs. A loan for Rs. 8,97,163/- was availed and is hypothecated to Central Bank and was paying Rs. 16,000/- p.m from 30/4/2010. The defects developed in the vital and major parts and even after repairing the defects persist repeatedly. The defects are serious manufacturing defects and cannot be cured by the opposite parties. The vehicle covered only 27000 kms and the services were carried out at proper intervals stipulated in the service manual at the authorised service centre of opposite party. The complainant was forced to engage taxi car and had to spend lot of money for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. The delay in returning the vehicle after proper repairs the complainant incurred petrol