JUDGMENT

Ajith Kumar D., Presiding Member—Appellant was the 5th opposite party in C.C. No. 166/2014 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (will be referred as District Commission in short). On 26.02.2021 the District Commission had passed an order directing the 5th opposite party, in the capacity as the Insurance Company with whom the said vehicle was insured, to pay a sum of Rs.5,53,777/- to the complainant as the value of the motor car bearing Reg. No.KL-14 N-9003. Opposite parties 1 to 4 were found jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 5th opposite party was also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

2. The case in the complaint is that on 19.09.2013 he had purchased a Polo Diesel Trendlium Car through the first opposite party and took delivery of the car from the show room of the second opposite party. On 11.06.2014 the engine of the car went off while the complainant was on his way to visit a relative. The vehicle was taken to the work shop of the second opposite party and got it back on 13.06.2014 after repairs. On 14.06.2014 while the complainant was passing through the road at Panajee the car hit on a hump on the road and caused oil leakage. The complainant did not drive the car ahead and the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the third opposite party through the second opposite party. The surveyor of the insurance company examined the vehicle and reported that the cost of service would be Rs.20,000/- and the said service is covered by insurance. But the third opposite party informed the complainant that the engine of the car is damaged and it has to be replaced for which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- will be required. Complainant again contacted the surveyor and conveyed about the need for the proposed replacement of the engine. But the surveyor had taken a stand that the engine has no defects and the damage if any caused to the vehicle was not due to the accident and hence it will not be covered by the insurance policy. From 17.06.2014 onwards the car is lying unattended in the workshop of the third opposite party. The car has got inherent manufacturing defects. Therefore the complainant would attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4 in supplying him a car having manufacturing defects.

3. Originally the complaint was filed against opposite parties 1 to 4 with a request for replacement of the engine of the car. But later the complaint was amended impleading the fifth opposite party, the insurance company alleging deficiency of service in settling the grievance of the complainant. The prayer for realization of Rs.5,88,837/- was incorporated as the value of the car.

4. Opposite parties 1 to 3 remained exparte. The fourth opposite party filed a version with the following pleadings:—

Fourth opposite party is a company dealing in the marketing, sale and servicing of Volkswagen Group Vehicles, through its dealers across India. When sale is effected, a warranty would be issued with specific terms and conditions. There is no cause of action against the fourth opposite party as there is no deficiency of service attributed against the fourth opposite party. The District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction as the fourth opposite party situates beyond the limits of the Commission. There are no manufacturing defects to the vehicle. On 14.06.2014 the car got damaged on account of an accident and since the insurance company had refused to honour the claim to bear the complete costs of the repairs on account of the terms of the insurance policy, the complainant made an attempt to fix the liability on the opposite parties. The attempt of the complainant is to enrich himself at the cost of these opposite parties for his own wrongs on account of the accidental damages. The 1st opposite party is the authorized dealer and the second opposite party is the workshop. The complainant had reported his car to t