ORDER

K.B. Sangannanavar : Pri. Dist & Session Judge (R) - Judicial Member—The complaint filed U/s.12 of CPA 1986 with prayer to pass an award directing OP.1 & 2 to replace the defective vehicle Skoda Laura with Laura or equivalent thereof (if Laura as a brand is dispensed with now) which is free from any manufacturing defects or price of the vehicle and to direct OP.1 & 2 to pay Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation for endangering the life of the Complainant and towards causing mental torture, agony and harassment.

2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant is that he is the owner of Laura car bearing reg.no.KA52 M6666 purchased from OP.2, which was manufactured by OP.1 for Rs.18,66,667/-. He alleged that his vehicle had chronic problem of AC & ABS and one of the Laura owner sounded caution that all Skoda cars are having ABS problems as early as 2010. The vehicle was sent to OP.2 and OP.2 called their engineers from Chennai for rectifying ABS problem but any repair on ABS was short lived. The Chief Mechanic was informed that ABS in Skoda Laura is a manufacturing defect. He has been approaching the OP.2 from the past 3 years about the malfunction of the ABS and the said problem has not been rectified for more than 3 years and the Complainant has faced tremendous mental torture, inconvenience and to safeguard his interests, he is not using the vehicle from January 2015 for long trips outside Bengaluru and he had purchased yet another SUV Pajero from Mitsubishi company and is using the said vehicle for all his long distance travel due to inefficient, substandard services rendered by OP.2. He had purchased said vehicle on 31.12.2014 for Rs.29,25,000/-. The vehicle purchased from OP.2 was with OP.2 for a period of 22 days to rectify the said ABS defect and after repairs, replacements and service a sum of Rs.41,527/- was paid on 21.04.2016. When he was travelling in the said vehicle to go to the airport on 22.04.2006 to go to Spain for international meet, the ABS problem reoccurred and the Complainant expressed his concern through a telephonic conversation and was assured immediate action. For the last 3 years without identifying manufacturing defects in the ABS components, OP.2 rendered deficiency in service and his vehicle become laughing stock due to the service rendered by OP.2. A legal notice dtd.18.05.2016 was issued and OP.2 replied with untenable grounds on 30.05.2016 and had issued rejoinder dtd.28.06.2016. The cause of action accrued on 31.03.2016, when OP.2 kept the vehicle for 21 days, on 18.05.2016, when legal notice was issued and when the OP.2 keep on postponing to comply with the notice on one or the other pretext and these facts sought for an award to be passed against OPs.1 & 2 as their liability is joint and several.

3. The Complainant brought Legal Representative of OP.1 as OP.1a and he is now on record as LR of OP.1. The OPs.1 & 2 put their appearance through learned counsels. It is the version of the OP.1; Complaint is not maintainable since complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer under the CPA 1986. He admits, car was purchased by complainant in 2006 from OP.2 the authorised dealer and since then he has been running the car since the date of purchase. OP.1 admits that he is the manufacturer and on principal to principal relationship with its authorised dealers car was sold by OP.2. The photographs produced by the Complainant are of the year 2016 and denies that the car had problem with manufacturing defects for the last 3 years. OP.1 denied that the ABS is a manufacturing defect. He denies that malfunctioning or the problem has not been rectified for more than 3 years. OP.1 is not aware of the fact that Complainant is not using the car from January 2015 onwards. OP.1 is unaware of purchase of SUV Pajero for the use of complainant and the car purchased from OP.2 is used only locally. OP.1 is not liable to pay any amount sought by the Complainant, as the car does not suffer from any manuf