BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.715 OF 2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC 51/2013 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, WARANGAL Between:

Ford India Ltd., Having office at South Regional Office, Ford India Pvt., Ltd., Block-1-B, 1st Floor, RMZ Mijdenia Business Park, 143, Dr.MGR Road, North Veeranam Salai, Chennai-96.

Presently having office at S.P.Kolli Post, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu-603 204, Represented by its authorized representative Mr.Vinay Raina.

…….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 And:

1. Venkateswara Rao Kandakatla, S/o Mallaiah, R/o 11-24-27/4, MV Colony, Road No.1, Deshaipet Road, Warangal, Telangana State- 506 006.

……..Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Sri Sri Sri Automobiles India Pvt., Ltd., Having office at Membi Plaza, 3-16-333, Mulug Cross Road Centre, Warangal, Telangana State – 518001.

……..Respondent No.2/Opposite party No.1.

Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2: M/s.LPJ Partners Advocates Counsel for the Respondent No.1/ Complainant : M/s C.A.R.

Sheshgiri Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.2/OP No.1 : Notice served QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

WEDNESDAY, THE 12 th DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT) 1. The appeal is filed by the Opposite Party No.2, u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.04.2021 in CC 51/2013 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Warangal.

2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Ford Figo car through showroom at Begumpet, Hyderabad on 03.09.2010, under Invoice No.777 for Rs.5,42,882/- and got registered the said car with RTA Warangal as AP 36-AH- 6559. The subject car was being serviced by him regularly as per the schedule at the Opposite party No.1, i.e. the Authorized dealer and Opposite party No.2, i.e. Service Station of the Ford Company. At the time of service at 20,000 kms, the opposite party No.1 informed that there was a problem of oil leakage and it has been rectified. On 16.12.2012 when the complainant was returning from Medaram Village, the car did not move suddenly and the same was intimated to the opposite party No.1 and brought to the workshop on 17.12.2012 by towing the car.

3. After great persuasion, one of the mechanics of opposite party No.1 attended and opened the engine, stated that it was damaged and requires Rs.1,50,000/- for repairs. The warranty is not available to the complainant though there is Company’s warranty upto 1,00,000/- kilometers. The complainant is facing lot of inconvenience in moving around and he has engaged a car and paying Rs.1,000/- per day to the owner for use, in addition to the other expenses in that regard. He got issued a notice on 09.02.2013 to the opposite parties, but they failed to reply; hence, the complaint.

4. Though notice was served on the opposite party No.1, but failed to appear before the Commission below. The opposite party No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The brief averments of the counter filed by the opposite party No.2 are that they admitted that the subject vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 03.09.2010, consequent to which he was issued with warranty booklet and owner’s manual pertaining to the subject vehicle along with miscellaneous/important documents. The warranty is for a period of 02 years or 1,00,000 kilometers and the period of 02 years was expired on 02.09.2012. As per the records, the complainant had purchased extended warranty for the subject vehicle. It is further stated that the warranty cover would not apply to “any repairs required as a fault of continued operation of the vehicle once a defect or fault has occurred” and stated that it would not be applicable to “any claim where mechanical failure has been caused by abuse/misuse of the vehicles”.

6. As per the investigations carried out by the opposite party No.2, it is stated that the impact on the