IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No. 570 of 2023 [Against the order dated 30.06.2022, passed in C.C.No.332 of 2014 by the DCDRC, Chennai (South)].

Thursday, the 15^th day of May, 2025 M/s. Skoda Auto India, Represented by its Managing Director, Plot No.A-1/1, Shendra, Five Star Industrial Area, MIDC Taluk & District, Aurangabad – 431 201, Maharashtra, India. .. Appellant/1^st Opposite Party.

- Vs –

1. Mr. B. Sambamoorthy, F-1, Priyadarshini Apartment, # 162, Fifth Street, Muruga Nagar, Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant.

2. M/s. Gurudev Motors Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Authorized Dealers of Skoda Auto India, # 559, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. … 2 nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party. Counsel for the Appellant/OP-1 : M/s. A.R. Ramanathan.

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/Complainant : M/s. P. Sankaranarayanan.

Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/OP-2 : M/s. BFS Legal.

This appeal came up for final hearing on 24.04.2025, and on hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for both sides and on perusing the written arguments filed by the appellant and the material records, this Commission made the following:-

O R D E R

THIRU. R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed by the appellant/1st opposite party, as against the order dated 30.06.2022, passed in C.C.No.332 of 2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st Respondent/complainant herein.

2. The Appellant is the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st Respondent is the complainant. The 2^nd Respondent is the 2^nd opposite party. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per the rankings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South).

3. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant had purchased a four wheeler vehicle of model SKODA FABIA FL Ambiente 1.2 TDI CR, manufactured by the 1^st opposite party company bearing Engine No.CFW 152036 and Chasis No.TMBFKF 5J5BG 09582 on 28.06.2011 through the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized dealer vide Invoice No.CHEN 02-2011-12/00219 dated

28.06.2011 for a sum of Rs.7,06,503/-. The said vehicle was registered with Regn.No.TN 07 BM 1918. Earlier he was having a four wheeler Model ZEN Maruti Suzuki and was looking for a replacement for the same and when he came across the brochures issued by the 1^st opposite party regarding the said vehicle which termed the vehicle “NOW THAT’S FAB”. The pep talk of the 1^st opposite party which was done by the deputed executive who asserted that the model was a world class car and that there was no rival to match it in all aspects followed by a test drive of a test vehicle. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to rely on the statements of the engineers and marketing executives of the 2^nd opposite party appointed to promote and sell the said model vehicle on behalf of the 1^st opposite party. It is a vehicle which has to be tested for the Indian road conditions and other compelling factors of wear and tear. Thereafter, the complainant took test drives provided by the executives of the opposite parties but the same was not sufficient enough to forecast the malfunctions now encountered in the purchased vehicle. Within a few months of his purchasing, the vehicle developed a snag and fuel was leaking from beneath the vehicle and he was shocked to find that diesel was leaking from under the bonnet and he had immediately towed the vehicle to the service centre where the problems were rectified. On another occasion, when he was travelling to Kumbakonam in an emergency situation to see his ailing mother enroute near Pondicherry, the vehicle had suddenly shut off automatically and the glow lamp (warning lamp) suddenly started to glow which resulted in tensed situation and consequently he had to call the above dealer to info