IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No.586 of 2024 (Against the order dated 14.03.2023 passed in C.C.No.265 of

2018 by the DCDRC, Coimbatore)

Friday, the 31^st day of January, 2025 Mahindra First Choice Car Services Limited, now MFC Auto Parts Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, 1st Floor, 271, Business Park, Model Industrial Estate, Visheshwar Nagar Road, Western Express Highways, Goregan East, Mumbai 400 063. ... Appellant/2nd opposite party - Vs –

1. Mr. Samba Moorthy, S/o Nagarathinam, No.128, Co-operative Colony, Uppilipalayam (Post), Coimbatore – 641 015. … 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. M/s. Express Service, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, (formerly M/s. Kalyani Services), Authorized Dealer for Mahindra First Choice Services Limited, (Multicar Service) 147, Dhayal Street, Thiru Nagar, Kavandanpalayam Post, Coimbatore – 641 030. … 2nd Respondent/1st Opp.

Counsel for Appellant/2^nd opp. : M/s.K.R.Mahesh Respondents 1 and 2 : Notice Served. Called absent This appeal came up for final hearing on 29.01.2025 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellant/2nd Opposite party and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed by the 2nd opposite party under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as against the order dated 14.03.2023 passed in C.C.No.265 of 2018, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore, allowing the complaint filed by the first Respondent herein.

The Appellant is the 2^nd opposite party, first Respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd Respondent is the 1^st opposite party before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the course of this order will be referred as per their respective rankings before the District Commission.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that, he had purchased Chevrolet, Beat Car bearing No. TN 58 X 5594 in the year 2011, while he was working in Indian Overseas Bank, Madurai Branch. During the fourth week of September 2017, since there was unusual noise during acceleration of gear and the check lamp burns, the complainant has handed over the car to the first opposite party for repairs. The first opposite party has collected Rs.32,000/- towards repairs, denting patch works etc. The first opposite party delivered the car on 27.09.2017, stating that the defects have been set right and the car was running well. But, from the day one, the said problem continues as it was previously. The complainant had contacted the first opposite party over phone and explained the same. At that time it was told that the problem would be set right step by step and in due course of time. But since the problem continues, the complainant again and again contacted the first opposite party over phone. But the first opposite party has given the same answer to the complainant. Hence, the complainant again handed over the car to the first opposite party on 13.10.2017, for setting right the defects. After checking up, the first opposite party told the complainant that the problem was with the engine and further told him if the vehicle is overhauled, the problem would disappear automatically. Since the first opposite party had collected Rs.32,000/- from the complainant when the vehicle was handed over for repairs at the first time, the complainant requested the first opposite party to overhaul the vehicle at free of cost. But the first opposite party had given diagnosis Report quoting the cost of repairs as Rs.16,000/-. Even then, the first opposite party did not rectify the defects. At that time the complainant was told that the defect would be rectified on nominal cost and the car would be delivered to him within a week’s time. The complainant again and again contacted the first opposite party in person/over phone once in a week/10 days and enquire