BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

F.A. No. 332/2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No. 138/2015 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION -I, HYDERABAD Between:

Sri Ugamraj Nahar, S/o. Sri Late Bhawarlal Nahar, Aged about: 65 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Plot No.477, Road No.21, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.

…. Appellant/Complainant And

1. The Managing Director, M/s. BMW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Building No.8, Tower-B, 7th Floor, DLF Cyber City, Phase 2, GURGAON -122001.

Haryana.

2. Mr. Goutam Reddy, Managing Director, M/s. KUN MOTOREN PRIVATE LIMITED, 6-3-569, Kun Exclusive, Opp. RTA, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082.

3. Mr. KrishnaBjushan, General Manager – After Sales, 6-3-569, Kun Exclusive, Opp. RTA, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082.

4. Mr. Azim Khan, M/s. Kun Motern Pvt. Ltd., 6-3-569, Kun Exclusive, Opp. RTA, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082.

…Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s. M.K. Daftari Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Opp. Party No.1 : Mr. Avinash Desi Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4/Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4 :

M/s. K. Vishweshwar Reddy QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO - PRESIDING OFFICER-

MEMBER - (JUDICIAL).

&

HON’BLE SMT.R.S.RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NON JUDICIAL).

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE Order : (Per Hon’ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member-Non -Judicial) 1. This appeal is filed u/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 by the opposite parties being aggrieved by the order dt.24.04.2019 passed in C.C.No.138/2015 by District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad wherein the District Commission had passed the following orders:

“(i) Directing the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to opposite parties 2 to 4 within one month from the date of service of this order and on receipt of said amount opposite parties 2 to 4 are directed to deliver the car to the complainant. (ii) The opposite parties 2 to 4 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing the delay for all these days. (iii) The opposite parties 2 to 4 further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of this complaint. (iv) Complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed. Time for compliance: one month from the date of service of this order.”

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as complainant and opposite parties as arrayed in the original complaint.

3. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a BMW car in August 2008 from the authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 and has been using the same since then regularly. As the car was giving trouble with regard to start button i.e., the car was not starting immediately after pressing the start button (Ignition), as such on September 04, 2014 he had approached the opposite party No.2 to 4 service centre with the said company. One of the employee of the opposite party No.4 attended and took the car to the work shop for the said repair. That as on 04.09.2014 there was no other problem in the car. But however the opposite party No.4 had handed over the car after two days without informing that there are any other problems in the car. After two days the same problem persisted. As such the complainant gave a call to the opposite party No.4, who had sent a person to pick the car; after which the complainant had informed that there is an issue with the coolant tank and no other problem was reported. Thereafter through several telephonic conversations the opposite party informed that a particular part needs to be replaced which would cost around Rs.30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. As the delivery of the car was being delayed the complainant agreed for the same.

On 25.11.2014 the complainant was informed that the car was ready to be picked up and the total cost quoted was Rs.1,25,000/- the complainant was shocked with the invoice raised by the opposite party. After few days i.e., on 03.12.2014 the opposite parties have raised a bill for Rs.3,31,237/-. Later on 05.12.2014 the opposite parties h