O RDE R

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of both these appeals, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short), arising out of the same impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (hereinafter called the “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2022/123, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite parties were directed to repair the vehicle in question to the full satisfaction of the complainant within 45 days free of cost failing which new vehicle of the same model was directed to be provided to the complainant. Compensation for mental agony Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) were also directed to be paid within 45 days, failing which the awarded amount was directed to be paid with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order. Feeling aggrieved the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 have challenged the impugned order vide appeal No.FA/24/95 and opposite party No.4 vide FA/24/299 appeal No.FA/24/299. Hereinafter in this order, for the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature before the District Commission.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant on 28.02.2022 purchased a Tata Ace Gold vehicle bearing registration No.CG-11-BE-5913 with the help of finance of Rs.5,97,417/- and EMI of the same was Rs.13,125/-. As per the allegations leveled in the complaint said vehicle started giving trouble within a month of purchase and developed wiring fault, which was got repaired by the complainant and just after 10 days silencer of the vehicle burst which was repaired by the Agency and vehicle was given on the next day and thereafter in every 08-15 days the vehicle used to develop problems like oil leakages from gearbox, oil filter and problem in clutch plate etc. and upon bringing the vehicle to the Agency for repairing, they used to keep the vehicle for 3-4 days for repairing. Thus, after purchase of the vehicle mostly the time was spent in repairing of the vehicle as the vehicle developed problems 15 times since its purchase. On 23.06.2022 the complainant made written complaint to the police also. Again the vehicle developed problem, the complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 Agency for repairing but they illegally charged Rs.4,000/- and gave the vehicle after repairing in 3 days. Thereafter, again on 04.07.2022 the silencer packing got burst. Intimation was given to the Agency they called the vehicle to the opposite party No.2 Agency and kept the vehicle for 3 days.

3. As per claim of the complainant the vehicle was to be repaired free of cost till 24 months but the opposite parties charged amount for repairing of the vehicle which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence complaint was filed seeking directions to the FA/24/299 opposite parties for providing a new vehicle along with payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service committed by them and cost of litigation etc.

4. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 in their joint written version except the admitted facts denied all the adverse allegations leveled against them and averred that on 20.05.2022 the vehicle was brought to the service center after its 5240 Kms run, which was repaired and handed over to him on the same day. On 27.06.2022 the vehicle was again brought to the service center after 7794 Kms run with the complaint of defects in clutch plate, on the same day new clutch plate was installed and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. On 04.07.2022 also packing of the vehicle was changed free of cost. It is apparent from tax invoice dated 29.07.2022 that the vehicle was brought to the service center after 9800 run and on that day also only amount for the items which were changed was charged. Thus, only the chargeable amount was c