Consumer protection laws require manufacturers and dealers to meet reasonable performance expectations for vehicles, especially luxury models, when persistent defects arise.

1. This is a complaint filed under S.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) seeking compensation for the deficiency in service alleged against the opposite parties. The complainant has claimed refund of the amount that he had paid as the price of a vehicle purchased by him from the opposite parties. He has also claimed compensation.

2. The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Nissan X Trail vehicle for an amount of Rs. 28,00,000 inclusive of registration fee, insurance, accessories etc. The vehicle is the one bearing Chassis No. JN 1 TN 131 B 3000620, Engine No. M9RD836C808649 and Registration No. KL - 05 AD - 02. The said vehicle was purchased on 23.6.2011 for the personal use of the complainant. The vehicle was covered by a warranty of 24 months or 50,000 kms. whichever was earlier. The vehicle was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is their marketing and sales office and 3rd opposite party is the authorized dealer and service centre of the 1st opposite party in the State of Kerala.

3. According to the complainant, out of the sale price, an amount of Rs. 9,00,000 was paid by the complainant as down payment and the balance amount was paid by Kotak Mahindra, his financier. The monthly instalment payable by the complainant to the financier towards repayment was Rs. 63,514 and the period of repayment was 36 months.

4. The complainant alleges that the vehicle was not running smoothly, right from the inception. However, the staff members of the 3rd opposite party, to whom complaints were made, informed the complainant that the vehicle would run smoothly after completion of 10,000 kms. Therefore the complainant waited.

5. While so, on 28.6.2011 the vehicle stopped abruptly when it had run just 780 kms, in the middle of a road. The incident was immediately reported to the 3rd opposite party who assured the complainant that they would send their technicians with a vehicle to tow the complainant’s vehicle to the workshop on 29.6.2011. Later they refused and the complainant was forced to tow the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party’s workshop on 30.6.2011. Consequently, the vehicle had to be left to remain on the road for one full day. Though the service engineers of the 3rd opposite party conducted a detailed examination of the vehicle, they could not identify any fault and therefore they returned the vehicle to the complainant. Though the said problem persisted even thereafter, the defect could not be rectified despite repeated complaints made to the 3rd opposite party. The complainant was being assured that the problems would subside when the vehicle was run for some time. However, the acceleration of the vehicle dropped drastically and the noise from the engine became louder and more prominent.

6. In the above circumstances, the vehicle came to an abrupt stop at 10,947 kms. and the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the 3rd opposite party. The service engineer conducted a check - up, carried out some minor repairs to the engine and returned the vehicle. But, even after such repairs, the noise from the engine continued unabated.

7. On 27.9.2011 the vehicle came to an abrupt stop with a big sound from the engine at 11,922 kms. and the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the 3rd opposite party. Though the service engineers of the 3rd opposite party again made a complete check up they could not ascertain the cause of the problem. Therefore, they removed the engine and other major parts of the vehicle and the vehicle is remaining in a dismantled condition in the 3rd opposite party’s workshop, to this date.

8. According to the complainant,