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 at 1404, Kesar Solitaire, 14th 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

1. The appellant is the 2nd 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 and as a consequence, the vehicle was serviced by the 1st opposite party on 12.06.2012, for which the 1st opposite party charged Rs. 75,888/-. Since the 1st 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.

3. The 1st opposite party filed a written version inter alia admitting that the original owner of the vehicle purchased the vehicle from the 1st 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 the vehicle was taken to the 1st opposite party for repair. The 1st 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.

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

5. The complainant and the 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked for the complainant and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked for the 1st 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 vehicle. Exhibit B1 would show that the vehicle had a warranty for a period of 24 months with unlimited kilometers from the date of delivery of the car to the original customer. Exhibit B2 is the extended warranty issued by the first opposite party, who was the dealer of the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle was purchased by the present complainant on 03.03.2012. The vehicle was delivered to the original owner of t