ORDER

K.B. Sangannanavar, Pri. Dist & Session Judge (R) - Judicial Member.—This is a complaint filed against OPs.1 & 2 seeking direction against them to pay the car value worth Rs.60,94,491/- and to pay general damages of Rs.20 lakhs totalling to Rs.80,94,491/- with interest at 18% p.a. or to replace the car with new car.

2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant would be stated below:

Complainant has purchased the Q5QUATTDI 2.0 14 125 A 7S model Audi Car from OPs on 20.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.47,37,959/- and she has paid a sum of Rs.2,50,001/- towards accessories and she has paid road tax of Rs.8,93,506/- to the RTO Chickmagalauru and a sum of Rs.20,000/- is paid towards advance registration number allotment, Rs.1,03,900/- paid towards premiums for the insurance coverage. After the delivery of the car, she found that there was some noise coming out while applying the brake, this has been brought to the notice of OP.1. The Complainant took the vehicle for the first free service and complained regarding noise coming out while applying the brake. After the first service while delivering the vehicle OP confirmed that problem has been solved and no sound will come forthwith, but the noise is continued as it was earlier. The Complainant while leaving the vehicle for 2nd free service also registered the complaint stating that noise is coming out while applying the brake. Even this time also after the 2nd free service, OPs said they have rectified it. The Complainant stays in Chickmagaluru far away from Bengaluru brought the vehicle for 3rd free service and complained about the sound and not happy with the service rendered by the OP. Air conditioner was also making noise and not cooling properly and shown dissatisfaction about the service and felt it could be a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The Complainant has paid repair charges of Rs.89,126/-. Even after the paid service, noise used to continue while applying the brake. When the vehicle was on warranty period had manufacturing defect was established then the OP has to replace the vehicle itself. Several complaints and attempts made to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. OP failed to replace the vehicle and failed to make the vehicle roadworthy. Even the technical team made efforts to sort-out the problem but it is still continued. The cause of action arose from the date of paid service i.e. 08.10.2015 when the OPs collected Rs.89,126/- and has sought for the reliefs against OP as stated in the preamble.

3. OP.1 is authorised service station while OP.2 is the sale company of the car bought by the Complainant. OP.1 is placed exparte while OP.2 contested the complaint contending that Audi cars are well known all over the world for its impeccable features and high safety standards which ensures trouble free and safe driving experience to the use of the car and its customers. The Complainant has purchased Audi Q5 model car out of her own free will and volition after ascertaining the suitability of the car. OP.2 is a sales company which provides customers a limited warranty and extended warranty strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty and extended warranty booklet for a certain period on the vehicles sold through its authorised dealers. The warranty and extended warranty is not absolute and is based on the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty and extended warranty booklet handed over to the end users. The authorised dealer informs that the car was reported to the workshop of the dealer on 19.06.2013 for accident related issue of damage on right hand side fog light grill. The car was repaired and handed over back to the Complainant on 06.07.2013. The dealer also informs that the same was attended to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The dealer further informs that the car reported to its workshop on 24.09.2013. As of that date the car had covered a mileage of 15488 kmks which suggests that the Compl