Date of filing :04.04.2018 Date of order : 26.09.2022 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 148 OF 2018 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 251 OF 2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.

Suresh Babu S/o Krishna Babu R/o B-4, Chankyapuri, Aurangabad. APPELLANT VERSUS

1. Through Ms.Amrita Chauhan, Customer Relationship Manager, Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd,.

A-1/1, MIDC, Five Star Industrial Area, Shendra, Aurangabad. 2. Through Mr.Ashok, Customer Relationship Manager, M/s Sarra Motors Pvt. Ltd,.

P-72/2, API Compound, Jalna road, Aurangabad. RESPONDENT No.1&2.

CORAM :Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Judicial Member.

Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

Present : Adv.S.N.Manchirel for appellant, Adv.N.R.Bhavar for respondent No.1 Adv.Sachin S.Shinde for respondent no.2 J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 26/09/2022)

Per K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order in C.C.No.251/2017 dated 08.03.2018 the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. The appellant is the ori. Complainant in the consumer complaint. Respondents are the opponent no.1&2 in the consumer complaint. They are hereinafter referred as complainant and opponent as per their status in the consumer complaint and the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum is referred to as District Consumer Forum for the sake of convenience.

3(i) It is the case of complainant Suresh Babu that, he purchased a Laura Car, AMB, MT.2.0, CRDI model 2011 on 12.01.2021 from respondent no.2 and he totally paid Rs. 14,57,090/- towards cost of the vehicle including registration charges, insurance etc. At the time of sale of the vehicle, the respondent no.2 issued invoice and service manual which guaranteed proper functioning of the said car. While delivering the vehicle the opponent no.2 instructed the complainant about various services and care to be taken for getting best performance. The following assurance were given by opponent no.2 as per service manual as follows.

i. Engine oil change- Every 15,000 km or after one year(whichever comes first).

ii. Inspection service – Every 30,000 kms. Or after two years (whichever comes first).

iii. Replace the toothed belt at 1,50,000 kms and then every

30,000 kms.

3(ii) The complainant conducted servicing of the vehicle timely and lastly he did servicing of the vehicle in Aug. 2016. That time vehicle was used for 96,032 km. The opponent no.2 had inspected the vehicle at every 30000 km. However, the opponent no.2 did not inform for the toothed belt at the time of said servicing in Aug. 2016. On 07.10.2016 the vehicle suddenly stopped while in travel and it was required to be taken to opponents service centre by towing. The vehicle was inspected by the engineers of the opponents and they informed that the vehicle has been stopped due to breaking of toothed belt and it was also informed that the company has granted toothed belt for its life up to 150000 km. and the respondent no.1 manufacturing company will bear the expenses for replacing, fitting of toothed belt and the damaged parts due to breaking of toothed belt. The opponent no.2 further communicated to complainant that, respondent no.1 manufacturing company has only approved replacement of some parts of cost of Rs.72,460/- and it was communicated on 10 Nov.2016. The opponent no.2 after completing the repairs and replacement of parts sent bill of Rs.98,972/- to the complainant. The complainant paid this bill under protest. The entire repairs and necessity of replacement of parts is only due to breaking of toothed belt of said car. Due to unexpected breaking of toothed belt at just 90,000 kms the complainant had to pay Rs.98,972/- when toothed belt was guaranteed for its working up to 1,50,000 kms. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint requesting the District Consumer Forum to give directions to respondent no2 to refund amount of Rs.98.972/-. The complainant also claimed Rs.1 Lakh towards physical and mental agony and also sought cost towards procee