A consumer must substantiate claims against relevant parties with specific allegations and evidence for a valid complaint.

1. The complainant herein seeks this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties to pay him Rs. 25 lakh as compensation towards the costs incurred in procuring his car, the expenses incurred towards taking all efforts in setting right the car, the post - travel expenses due to non - availability of the car and towards the mental agony / hardship suffered by him due to the deficiency in service by the OPs, and Rs. 25,000 towards costs of the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant, as projected in the complaint, in brief, is as follows:
On 26.1.2015, the complainant had booked with the 2nd OP a petrol car / Fiat Linea Sedan bearing Chassis Number MCA110CCE0903761JJZ & Engine No. 1899657 for Rs. 10,59,068. On 15.2.2015, he took delivery of the vehicle and, on 16.2.2015, the warranty period was extended for another two years by paying a sum of Rs. 7,303 towards premium. On 28.8.2015, the 1st free service of the said car was done with the 2nd OP from whom the cars order - cum - delivery was placed / made and, after the 2nd service on 5.3.2016, the complainant noticed huge oil leakage from the engine, whereupon, the technician of the 2nd OP came and fixed the issue on 7.3.2016, however, the steering became very hard, about which, the complainant informed the 2nd OP, who took the car for a test ride and said that it was a normal condition and asked him to take back the vehicle. Since there was no effective service from the 2nd OP, the complainant was driving the car with abnormal steering and, on 4.3.2017, the 3rd free service was done at the place of the 2nd OP.
While so, on 25.3.2017, the complainants brother / B. Peter drove the car and, while he was nearing Neyveli, a stray dog crossed the road and to avoid hitting it, the car was stopped within a few feet away from the dog, and thereafter, he continued to drive but he could not start it. On contacting the FIAT toll free number for road side assistance, he was told that, for towing the vehicle, they would charge Rs. 25,000 separately. Thereafter, he contacted the 2nd OP, who suggested him to bring the car to their workshop through local towing service and accordingly, by spending Rs. 9,000, the vehicle was towed to the 2nd OP, who required submission of documents viz., Driving Licence, RC Book, Insurance Company, etc. and, after submission of those documents for insurance claim, the Insurance Surveyor visited the 2nd OP / workshop and completed the initial analysis of the vehicle. On 29.3.2017, the complainant, after enquiring with a representative of the 2nd OP, came to know about the damage to the radiator, condenser, bumper & the internal pipe connecting the TURBO and also the crankshaft rotation apart from seizure of the engine.
On 30.3.2017, along with the Insurance Surveyor, the complainants brother met the Regional Manager of the Insurance Company / 4th OP, who had given approval to diagnose the engine. However, the 2nd Opposite Party did not take up any work for more than a month and, during the personal visit made by the complainant, he was told that the seized engine needs to be replaced and that they dismantled the same and awaiting approval from the Insurance Team to order for a new engine. In that regard, after many personal discussions and exchange of correspondence with the Insurance Company / 4th OP, the Regional Manager agreed to pay 50% of the cost of the engine and insisted the complainant to claim the balance 50% from the 1st OP / Car Manufacturer for the good willl support. The complainant approached the 1st OP for the goodwill support regarding the remaining 50% of the engine cost, but, they denied such request and advised him to approach the 4th OP / Insurance Company for approval. While so, on 19.6.2017, the 2nd OP inf