IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.161/2013 (Against the order made in C.C.No.16/2010 dated 04.07.2012 on the file of the District Forum, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.)

TUESDAY, THE 17^t DAY OF MAY 2022

1. The Managing Director, M/S. Premier Limited, Corporate Office, 58, Nariman Bhavan, 5th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. 1st Appellant/1st Opposite Party

2. The Managing Director, M/s Premier Limited, Registered Office and Works, Mumbai – Pune Road, Chinchwed, Pune – 411 019. 2nd Appellant/2nd Opposite Party -Vs-

1. M.Shaik Mohamed, S/o Mytheen Pitchai, 8/26, A.Mydeenpuram, Madhavalayam, Thovalai, Kanyakumari District. 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. The General Manager, M/s Hari Premier Limited, (Susee Auto), 10K/1, Thiruvanandapuram Road, Opp.tomTower, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 627 005. 2nd Respondent/3rd Opposite Party

3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vadiveeswaram, Nagerkoil, Kanyakumari District. 3rd Respondent/4th Opposite Party Counsel for Appellants-1&2/Opp.Parties-1&2 : Mr.N.Karunanidhi, Advocate. Counsel for Respondent-1/Complainant : Mr.P.Sureshkumar, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent-2/Opposite Party-3 : Given-up.

Counsel for Respondent-3/Opposite Party-4 : Mr.N.Sundararajan, Advocate.

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 29.04.2022 and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This appeal has been filed by the un-successful appellants / opposite parties- 1&2,under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Forum, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil made in C.C.No.16/2010, dated 04.07.2012, partly allowing the complaint. 2. For brevity, the parties are referred as per their ranking in the complaint filed before the District Forum. The complainant M.Sheik Mohamed has purchased a Premier Road Star Tempo bearing Registration No.TN 74 K 9061 and Engine No.3HNBF 017876 and chasis No.XP 200218X on 01.11.2006 from the third opposite party showroom. The vehicle was manufactured by the first and second opposite parties. It was widely published and propagated that the Tempo is most efficient and consumption of fuel would be very low. Believing the above words the complainant purchased the vehicle. However, from the date of purchase, the vehicle was defective in nature. The engine oil oozed out from the engine and hence the complainant to rectify the defect placed the vehicle under the care of the third opposite party repeatedly on many occasions. Inspite of, that, the above defect was continuously persisting. The vehicle was purchased through bank loan offered by the fourth opposite party. Hence, the complainant left the vehicle on 26.03.2007 with the third opposite party service station for replacement of engine. But replacement was not made. The complainant sent a notice to all the parties on 27.10.2007 for which a reply has been received from the first and second opposite parties on 26.12.2007. The engine was not replaced inspite of, manufacturing defect. Hence, he preferred the complaint for replacement of vehicle and for compensation.

3. The first and second opposite parties in their counter has stated that the vehicle was free of any manufacturing defect and it has been used against the terms and conditions of the warranty by the complainant. Abusive usage leads to these kind of defect. Further, as per the warranty agreement the Consumer Forum lacks of territorial jurisdiction and only courts at Mumbai alone have jurisdiction.

4. The third opposite party filed a separate objection stating that the complainant altered the vehicle and modified the same for carrying out heavy load. The improper usage and body weight causes these kinds of defects and he is not liable for alleged manufacturing defect.

5.