BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.716 OF 2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.03 OF 2020, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, WARANGAL Between:

1. Automotive Manufacturers Pvt.Ltd., Regd. & Head Office 108, Bazar Ward, Kurla, Mumbai – 400070, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

2. Automotive Manufacturers Pvt.Ltd., Opp: Aishwarya Gardens, Near Hanuman Junction, Mulugu ‘X’ Roads, Warangal – 506002, Rep. by its Manager.

.…Appellants/Opp.Parties And Bochu Swamy, S/o.Mysaiah, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Business, H.No.4-70, Pochampally Village, Lingala (Post), Regonda Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District.

…..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opp.Parties : M/s. P.V.Janani & Associates Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Notice served QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE *******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble In-charge President)

1. This appeal is filed by the Complainant U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 15.09.2021 in CC.No.03 of 2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Warangal by allowing this appeal and absolving the liability of these Appellants, in the interest of justice.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant is the Complainant and the Respondent is the Opposite Party in CC.No.03/2020.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that – the Complainant purchased a Ashok Leyland Lorry for Rs.30,83,016/- from Opposite Party No.1 and was given an invoice dated 27.01.2018. The lorry was used for his business purpose and also to engage with M/s.Arun Transport and Satyanarayana Transport, Bhupalpalli.

4. On 16.07.2019, he had trouble with the vehicle due to chassis crack and chassis bolt loosening and handed over the lorry to Opposite Party No.2 for repair. He claims, that the estimated date of delivery was given as 24.07.2019 but the Opposite Party No.2 never repaired the vehicle and he has suffered great monetary loss due to non-delivery of the said lorry. He has filed the present complaint for the loss suffered for not repairing the vehicle in time and lapse of 3½ months has affected his business and livelihood. He has further averred that after issuance of legal notice on 18.11.2019, Opposite Party No.2 requested the Complainant to take delivery of the lorry and promised to pay him compensation but have failed to reimburse him.

5. The main defense raised by the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant had converted the chassis into Tipper body whereas the lorry purchased by the Complainant is a Haulage Chassis for which the body must be built by wooden frames, whereas the body was built into a Tipper Body which is a very heavy weight and is against the warranty norms. They claim that the said lorry was repaired and handed over to the Complainant on 31.08.2019 with a manual gate pass. They deny that they gave any assurance to the Complainant that the vehicle would be repaired by 24.07.2019. It was informed to the Complainant that Opposite Party No.2 would require time to repair for receipt of spare parts. They further add that the Complainant delayed by 30 days in bringing the lorry to their workshop. They submit that the Complainant has no locus standi to file any such application as there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6. Before the District Commission, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 to A13 are marked on his behalf. The Opposite Parties filed evidence affidavit. Ex.B1 to B5 are marked on their behalf.

7. The District Commission after hearing and considering the material on record, allowed the complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income for (3) months which comes to Rs.1,50,000/- to the Compl