Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

of Telangana, Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad at Hyderabad FA NO.182 OF 2016 AGAINSTc C NO.179O F 2015 ONT HE FILE OF DISTRICTc OMMISSION-LH, YDERABAD Between:

Volkswagen (Division of PPS Motors Pvt., Itd.)

Plot No.56, Tirumulgherry, Secunderabad - 500 015, represented by its Authorised Signatory, Sri T.R.Ganesh Aiyer S/o late TKR Aiyer, R/o Secunderabad .Appellant/Opposite party And Smt Roja Rani W/o K.Prabhakar Rao, aged 44 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o C/o Vishwa Shanti Educational Institutes, Padma Nagar, Varni Road, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503 O01.

.Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant M/s Sunil B.Ganu Counsel for the Respondent Served with notice CORAM *****

Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal . President Smt Meena Ramanathan Member and Sri K.Ranga Rao Member Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand Twenty Two Oral Order:

***

This is an appeal preferred by the Opposite party aggrieved by the orders dated 09.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad in CC No. 179/2015 in allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite party therein to repair the vehicle free of charge and make it roadworthy in addition to providing warranty of two years and handover to the Complainant; to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards depreciation value of the vehicle whereupon the Complainant shall return the vehicle to Opposite party and Complainant was directed to choose any one of the reliefs granted above and inform to the Opposite party ^within one month after receipt of the ^{order; to pay compensation of} Rs.20,000/- and costs ^of Rs.5,000/, granting time of (60) days ^for compliance.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3It is the case of Complainant that she purchased Volkswagen (vento) Car on 08.10.2011 from Opposite party by paying Rs.9,91,638/- and later got registered the same as AP-25AG-1899. The vehicle started giving trouble of "pick-up" and suddenly coming down in terms of speed and when took the vehicle to Opposite party on 04.09.2014, they returned the same on 01.10.2014. When she started journey to Nizamabad, on the way, when she reached Kompally, the vehicle started giving the same problem, resulting which, the vehicle was handed over to the Opposite party for which, Opposite party collected Rs.40,000/- and again raised the bill for Rs.2,09,230/- which she paid on 07.10.2014 but the bill was ante-dated as 31.10.2014. In the second week of November

2014 the vehicle was deliver.

4) Again on 03.02.2014 the Complainant experienced the same problem and now the vehicle is lying unused. In fact, the Opposite party has to attend the repairs at free of cost if it is within the warranty period of 6 years. Hence, complaining deficiency of service, filed the complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite party to grant compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for raising exorbitant bill; Rs.8,00,000/- for delivering defective vehicle and resorting to unfair trade practice; Rs.2,00,000/- for making the wander around the Opposite party and to pay costs of the complaint.

5) Opposite party filed its written version denying the version of the Complainant. They received the vehicle on 04.09.2014 with reading of 75000 kms with a complaint of malfunctioning light glowing cluster and also damage in frontal portion where the Complainant tied the lock carrier and bumper. They carried-out the paid service and also replaced lock carrier connecting hose pipe and inter cooler. Whern the vehicle was taken on road test, problem with Turbo charger was noticed which would take some time. In fact, at the time of complaint, the vehicle was not covered under warranty. However, Complainant took away the venielc on 01.10.2014 and brought back the vehicle 03.10.2014. Upon on nspection, it was noticed that the EGR is to be replaced which would cOst around Rs.30,438/- and thereafter the vehicle