BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESsSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADD FA NO.437/2017A GAINSTTHE ORDERS IN C.C.NO.197O F 2012 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-IIH YDERABAD, Between:

Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy,S/oD. r.M.Rama Prasad Aged about 32 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.8-3-228, Flat No.105, Dhruva-II, Sreenivasa Village Apartments, Yousufguda Check Post, Hyderabad 500 045.

... Appellants/Complainants AND

1. Tata Motors Limited Represented by its Chairman&

Managing Director, 1-10-39 to 44, 4th Floor, Gumidelli Towers, Opp: Shoppers Stop, Old Airport Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.

8

1st Floor, Bombay House, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.

2. Concorde Motors (India) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Ground Floor', Golden Edifice, Khairatabad Circle, Hyderabad - 500 004.

Corporate Office: 9/8, Hosur Road, No.63, Dairy Circle, Opp: Christ College, Bangalore - 560 029, Karnataka State.

3. Mallik Cars Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, 8-1-328/1, Shaikpet Nala Road, Opp: Laxmi Nagar, Tolichowki Road, Hyderabad - 500 008.

4. TejaswiniMotors Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Plot No.4/14, Opp: Cyber ^Towers Khanamet, K.P.H.B. Road, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081.

Respondent/Opposite Parties Counsel for Appellant/ComplainantM: /s.B.VenkateshwarR ao Counsel for Respondents/OppositeP arties: Mr.Laxshminarayana- R1 Mr.A.MuralidharReddy R3 Notice served R2 & R4 QUORUM:

SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND HON'BLE sMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, LADY MEMBER THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO wwwwww Order: (Per Smt.Moena Ramanathan,H on'ble Lady Member)

1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to set aside the order dated

06.03.2014 in CC.No.197 of 2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Forum-l1, Hyderabad and consequently allow the Cc.No.197 of 2012 as prayed in the complaint.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that, the Complainantp urchased Tata Safari Dicor Lxi model sports utility from Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.8.95,981/-.T he said vehicle was covered by warranty for a period of 2 years and on persuasionby the Opposite Parties, the Complainantfurther paid a sum of Rs.3,976/-towards Annual Maintenance Contract and a sum of Rs.6,400/- towards Extended Warranty (EW). The Complainant alleged that Opposite Parties falsely representedthat the validity of AMC is till 1,95,000 kms and obtained signatures on blank papers and later filed the papers as per his convenience. Further, the Complainant alleged that the vehicle underwent several times for repairs. The vehicle was in the garage for a maximum period of 40 days and the vehicle was never serviced properly and the defects were never attended to and rectified within a reasonable time. The Complainant alleged that there was a manufacturingd efect in the vehicle and hence the complaint.

4. The Opposite Party No.1,2 ^{and 4} were called absent.

5.

.The Opposite Party No.3 filed their written version denying in brief and stated that on a plain reading of the complaint there appears to be no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and also stated that they have collected amounts in accordance to the services rendered by them and hence there is no deficiency inn service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.

6. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A52 are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Oral evidence of the Opposite Parties have been submitted.

7. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering the material on record allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party No.1 to 4 jointly and severally to refund the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,06,656/- incurred towards the costs of repairs along with interest@9% p.a. from the date of co