STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/95/2013 SHIHANOUK. S PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O SHAHUL HAMEED,KARMA, SWAMIMUKKU,PULIPPARA PO KADAKKAL, PIN-691536 ,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus PLATINO CLASSIC MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED PRESENT ADDRESS - NH 47 BY PASS ROAD, MARADU PO KOCHI682304 ,KERALA.

BMW INDIA(P) LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - BUILDING NO 8, TOWER B ,7TH FLOOR,DLF CYBER CITY PHASE 2 GURGOAL HARYANA PIN 122001 ,KERALA.

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - RAMAN HOUSE,HT-PRAKH MARG 169, BACK BAY RECLAMATION , MUMBAI-400020 ,KERALA.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: 11/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.95/2013 JUDGEMENT DATED: 11.06.2025 PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. : MEMBER RADHAKRISHNAN COMPLAINANT:

Shihanouk S., S/o Shahul Hameed, Karma, Swamimukku, Pulippara P.O., Kakakkal, Kollam – 691 536 (by Adv. K.J. Kuriachan)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. Platino Classic Motors India Pvt. Ltd., NH 47 Bypass Road, Maradu

P.O., Kochi – 682 304 represented by its Managing Director P.P.

Ashik

(by Advs. A. Abdul Kharim & Prakash P. George)

th

2. BMW India (P) Ltd., Building No.8, Tower B, 7 Floor, DLF Cyber City, Phase II, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001 represented by its Country Manager (Operations), Rohid Sood (by Adv. R. Suja Madhav)

3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., Raman House, HT-

Prakh Marg 169, Back Bay Reclamation, Mumbai – 400 020 (by Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The complainant is the registered owner of BMW 520d Sedan bearing registration No.

KL 24 E 100.

st

2. The 1 opposite party No1 to 3 are the dealer, the manufacturer and the insurer of the car.

3. On 30.06.2013 while the complainant was travelling in the car through Changanacherry-Alappuzha road, the vehicle suddenly switched off at Mankombu. It was a rainy day and rain water was collected at the spot where the vehicle stood switched off. The st st complainant had informed the matter to the 1 opposite party and the workers of the 1 opposite party reached the spot with a recovery van and took the vehicle to the garage of the st

1 opposite party for necessary repairs. The complainant had also informed the matter to the 3 opposite party and handed over the records with regard to the insurance coverage to the 1 st st opposite party. It was told by the 1 opposite party that they have issued information rd st regarding the repairs to be carried out to the 3 opposite party. It was assured by the 1 opposite party that the repair works will be completed and the vehicle be repaired and returned within seven days. But the vehicle was not delivered.

4. The complainant waited for seven days but the vehicle was not made ready for delivery. On 30.10.2013 the complainant had caused issuance of a lawyer notice to the opposite parties 1 and 3 requesting them to take urgent steps for the delivery of the car after effecting repairs and to process the claim within seven days. The vehicle still remains in the st garage of the 1 opposite party. The complainant came to know about the details regarding the month and year of the manufacture of the vehicle incorporated in the registration that they have played fraud on the complainant in connivance with the Motor Vehicle st Department. There is manufacturing defect with respect to the vehicle. The 1 opposite party does not possess qualification as a mechanic. The complainant had purchased the vehicle by availing loan from the HDFC Bank and remitting Rs.64,108/-(Rupees Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred and Eight only) per month towards the bank loan. The complainant was constantly contacting the opposite parties for delivery of the vehicle after effecting necessary repairs.

5. In the above circumstances, the complainant was constrained to file this complain