The entitlement of the vehicle owner to free repairs within the warranty period and the collection of repair charges by the appellant during the warranty period constituted a deficiency in service.

JUDGMENT :

R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, J.

1. The opposite party No. 1 is the appellant. The appeal arises out of the order passed by the District Forum, Adilabad on 3.4.2013 in CC 78 of 2010.

2. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the case are that the first respondent purchased Maruthi Omni Van bearing chassis No. 802758, engine No. 3690331 on 7.12.2006 from the appellant. The vehicle was manufactured by the second respondent which had its regional office i.e., the third respondent at Hyderabad. The vehicle experienced sudden breakdown on 25.6.2008 and the respondent No.4 towed the vehicle to its work shop and found that the engine of the vehicle was seized. The respondent No. 4 collected a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.19,664/- on the premise that the repairs were not covered by the scope of warranty.

3. The appellant resisted the claim on the premise that the complaint is hit by the principle of res-judicata as previously a case pertaining to the same subject matter was returned to the first respondent with a direction to approach proper Forum. The respondent No. 4 is not an authorized service centre of the appellant company to carry out major repairs. The first respondent had not brought the vehicle for any free service to the appellant or any authorized dealer of the second respondent. The vehicle was brought on 27.6.2008 for repairs to the appellant. The first respondent violated the terms of the warrant by getting the vehicle attended at irregular intervals at private service station. As the terms of the warranty were violated, the first respondent was charged Rs.29,664/- the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4. The second and third respondents filed written version contending that the vehicle covered 38,677 within 18 months from the date of its purchase as on 27.06.2008. The work shop of appellant company is situated at Hyderabad and the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. The first respondent paid the repairing charges to the appellant. The complaint is hit by the principle of res-judicata. The first respondent has not shown any cause of action for filing the complaint against the respondent No. 2 and 3. The warranty of the vehicle was expired on 6.12.2008. The vehicle was attended by unauthorized mechanic due to which the first respondent lost his warranty entitlement.

5. The fourth respondent contended that it is not the manufacturer of the vehicle or the dealer of the appellant company. The fourth respondent is an agent of Maruthi service station and it is unnecessarily impleaded in the proceedings. No liability can be fixed on the respondent No. 4. Hence, the respondent No. 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6. The first respondent, in support of his claim, filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3, its Technical Engineer filed his affidavit. The appellant and the respondents No. 2 to 4 did not choose to file any documents.

7. The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the premise that the vehicle required repairs within the warranty period and complaint is not hit by the principle of res-judicata. The District Forum held the first respondent entitled to refund of the repairing charges, a sum of Rs.29,664/-.

8. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party No. 1 has filed the appeal on the premise that the complaint is hit by the principle of res-judicata and the respondent No. 1 violated the terms and conditions in regard to the warranty mentioned in the manual. The respondent No. 1 got effected repairs to the vehicle at an unauthorized service centre and that the respondent No. 4 is not an authorized service centre of the appellant company. The respondent No. 1 failed to avail periodical free service of the vehicle and he paid the amount of Rs. 29,664/- towards repairing charges without any protest or objection. The appellant submitted that there was no deficiency i