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 n