STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/801/2017 FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILS LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - PLOT NO.B 19, RANJANGAON MIDC INDUSTRIAL AREA, RANJANGAON- 412220, PUNE.,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus M P GANGADHARAN PRESENT ADDRESS - KAKKADATHODI HOUSE, KAVANUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM.,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 23/03/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 801/2017 ORDER DATED: 23.03.2026 (Against the Order in C.C. 446/2014 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

M/s Fiat India Automobiles Limited having its Registered Office at Plot No. B 19, Ranjangaon MIDC Industrial Area, Ranjangaon-412 220, Pune and Legal Department th at 1404, Kesar Solitaire, 14 Floor, Plot No. 5, Sector 19, Palm Beach Road, Sanpada, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 705 represented by its Senior Manager-Legal, Mr. Anil Joshy (By Adv. Denu Joseph and Adv. Narayan R.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. M.P. Gangadharan, S/o Raman Nair, Kakkadathodi House, Kavanur P.O., Malappuram District (By Adv. Arya Harshan)

2. Skyhigh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ootty Road, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT nd The appellant is the 2 opposite party in C.C. No.446/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. On 03.03.2012, the complainant purchased a second-hand vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-46 C-6116 manufactured by the second opposite party. The first owner of the vehicle purchased the vehicle on 01.02.2010. The vehicle had an extended warranty up to 01.02.2014. During this period, the vehicle had a break-down st and as a consequence, the vehicle was serviced by the 1 opposite party on st st

12.06.2012, for which the 1 opposite party charged Rs. 75,888/-. Since the 1 opposite party had charged the above-said amount from the complainant for repairing the vehicle, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

st

3. The 1 opposite party filed a written version inter alia admitting that the st original owner of the vehicle purchased the vehicle from the 1 opposite party on 01.02.2010. Thereafter, the present complainant purchased the vehicle from the original owner on 03.03.2012. The normal warranty of the vehicle was for 80,000 kilometers or 24 months, whichever occurred first. An extended warranty was given for 26 months or 1,50,000 kilometers, whichever would happen first. The extended warranty was subjected to periodic maintenance of the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. However, the complainant did not take the vehicle for periodic service. Therefore, the vehicle had a break-down on 12.06.2012, and hence st st the vehicle was taken to the 1 opposite party for repair. The 1 opposite party repaired the vehicle and charged an amount of Rs. 75,888/- from the complainant as the extended warranty was not applicable since the complainant failed to comply with the requirements of the extended warranty.

nd

4. The 2 opposite party did not file any written version.

st

5. The complainant and the 1 opposite party filed proof affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked for the complainant and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for st the 1 opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 75,888/- to the complainant. The District Commission also directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs to the complainant. There was also a default clause for interest.

6. Heard. Perused the records.

7. The appellant is admittedly the manufacturer of the vehicle. The appellant had issued Exhibit B1 warranty to the owner of the ve