JUDGMENT

Gautam Chourdiya, President—This complaint, under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short), has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in selling a vehicle having manufacturing defects, seeking directions to the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 to pay total amount of Rs.13,28,200/- (Thirteen Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred) on different heads i.e. Rs.1,90,000/- (One Lac Ninety Thousand) the amount taken as booking amount, Rs.8,66,136/- (Eight Lacs Sixty Six Thousand One Hundred & Thirty Six) the total invoice amount along with Rs.2,72,064/- (Two Lacs Seventy Two Thousand & Sixty Four) towards bank interest along with directions to the opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3 for payment of compensation for mental harassment, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service along with cost of litigation Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) and any other relief as this Commission deems fit to award.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant booked a Tata Nexon Kraz+ vehicle and paid Rs.1,90,000/- as booking amount to the opposite party No.1, which was delivered to the complainant on 14.10.2018 by the opposite party No.1 and total invoice amount was Rs.8,66,136/-. The vehicle was insured by opposite party No.3 and was purchased with the help of finance provided by the opposite party No.4. The vehicle was registered with the RTO Durg vide registration No.CG-07-BP-8880. On 26.10.2018 the complainant observed underbody noise in the said vehicle, which was reported to the opposite party No.1 which they recorded in the Job Card also. On 06.11.2018, when the complainant was going towards Delhi, the vehicle was dashed by a truck from back side in which only the door of the boot space was damaged. The vehicle was brought to the opposite party No.1 for repairing, who claimed insurance for the same from opposite party No.3 and replaced the door. But noises from the rear side and underside of the vehicle were continuously being observed by the complainant which was reported to the opposite party No.1 on 30.11.2018 and 25.01.2019 also. On the next day of the said servicing, on 26.01.2019, just after driving 5-7 kms the engine gave a heavy knocking sound and then seized all of a sudden. The complainant called Sairam Automobiles, the authorized service station of the opposite party No.2 in Bhilai, who informed that there is no oil in the engine, hence it was seized and they helped to tow the vehicle to the opposite party No.1, who said that may be due to leakage the engine oil has drained completely. But there was no sign of any leakage of engine oil in the vehicle.

3. The opposite party No.1 and representatives of opposite party No.2 recommended and assured that they will change the engine of the vehicle with a new one, but that was in fact not done, as on delivery of the vehicle the complainant verified the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle from the certificate of registration. The fact was reported to the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 and to the opposite party No.4 financer of the vehicle also. The driver side rear shock up of the vehicle also stopped working and due to manufacturing defect of the same the vehicle started malfunctioning and the noise from the rear and bottom of the car increased. On 01.05.2019 when the vehicle was being driven towards Rajnandgaon with passengers, the right hand side rear wheel of the vehicle came out all of a sudden. The complainant then approached Jas Motors, who is an authorized service center of opposite party No.2, who helped the complainant to tow the vehicle to the opposite party No.1. The vehicle was repaired and handed over to the complainant and charges of Rs.8,000/- were collected from the complainant. It is averred that the complainant is a self-employed person and purchased the vehicle for his own use but the said vehicle was continuously deve