BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY Dated this the 1^st day of April 2026 FIRST APPEAL No.8/2025 Kun Motor Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its authorised signatory Pragash, S/o.Subramani.

No.148/50, ECR Road, Kottupalayam, Next to Amudhasurabi Petrol Bunk, Lawspet, Pudcherry-605 008.

... Appellant/ Opposite Party Vs R. Vijayakumaran, S/o.Ramachandran, No.30,31, Rainbow Nagar, Gandhi Nagar Post, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddaore District Tamil Nadu-607 308. … Respondent/Complainant (On appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry in CC No.09/2023 dated 30.07.2024)

CC No.9/2023 R. Vijayakumaran, S/o.Ramachandran, No.30,31, Rainbow Nagar, Gandhi Nagar Post, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddaore District Tamil Nadu-607 308. …. Complainant Vs Kun Motor Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., No.148/50, ECR Road, Kottupalayam, Next to Amudhasurabi Petrol Bunk, Lawspet, Pudcherry-605 008. …. Opposite Party BEFORE:

DR.S.SUNDARAVADIVELU, PRESIDING MEMBER TMT.S. OUMASANGUERY, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

M/s.Law Solvers, Advocates FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Party appeared in person.

O R D E R

(By Dr.S.Sundaravadivelu, Presiding Member)

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry (DC in short hereafter) in CC No.9 of 2023 dated 30.07.2024.The appellant Kun Motor Enterprises Private Limited was the opposite party in the proceedings before the DC and the respondent R.Vijayakumaran herein was the complainant. The consumer complaint was filed regarding service issues with the car, a Skoda Superb owned by Vijayakumaran.

2. The case of the complainant was that he purchased a Skoda Superb car on 28.10.2020 for Rs.30,83,000/- and that during the service on December 10, 2022 in Kun Skoda, Puducherry, the workshop damaged the car's running board by incorrectly placing the jack. While the service center initially denied this, a service engineer named Mr. Vignesh eventually visited the complainant's residence on January 3, 2023, and admitted that the damage was caused by their mistake. The complainant alleged that he reported an occasional ABS warning light but the service center failed to resolve despite charging a fee. The service engineer stated the ABS sensor showed a "passive" complaint and as per company guidelines it could only be replaced under guarantee if it showed an "active" complaint. The complainant argued this was a safety risk.

3. The conflict escalated when Kun Motor Enterprises requested that the complainant drive the vehicle 70 to 80 kilometers back to their workshop in Pondicherry to rectify the issues. The complainant refused, asserting that the car was unsafe for operation due to the ABS fault. Because the service center declined to provide further on-site service the complainant eventually purchased a sensor from another vendor and hired a private mechanic to fix the ABS fault on January 14, 2023.

4. In his complaint, Mr. Vijayakumaran sought the following compensation:

1.Rs. 50,000 for the running board damage.

2.Rs. 7,000 for spare parts and labor charges.

3.Rs. 31,666 for depreciation loss.

4.Rs. 22,166 for interest loss.

5.Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and suffering.

5. The District Commission eventually found a deficiency in service on the part of Kun Motor Enterprises, noting that forcing the complainant to drive an unsafe vehicle with an ABS issue was not an acceptable defense.

6. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and awarded Mr. Vijayakumaran a total of Rs. 52,000 in compensation and costs, broken down as follows:

1.Cost of Parts and Labour: Rs. 7,000 was awarded for the expenses incurred by the complainant for repairs.

2.Compensation for Deficiency of Service: Rs. 40,000 was awarded for the deficiency in service and the subsequent suffering and hardships caused to Mr.

Vijayakumaran.

3.Cost of Litigation: Rs. 5,000 was awarded to cover the costs