JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“Facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Vehicle i.e. wagon-R (VXI) car having registration no. DL- 8CAD-1998 from OP and the vehicle was delivered on 31.03 2014 and at the time of selling the car, both the OPs jointly provided warranty to the complainant on the said vehicle.

On 05.10.2015, the vehicle suddenly stopped on the road at Narela. Delhi and thereafter its engine did not start and Mukesh & Ganga Crane Service towed the vehicle to OP-1 and the service advisor of OP-1 issued a job card The OP miserably failed to remove the defect in the said vehicle which act is unprofessional and as a result of which the complainant has suffered huge losses. For the 1st time OP-1 sent a response dated 14.10.2015 and again on 31.10.2015 and submitted the reason for engine not starting is due to Hydrostatic Lock and the same is not covered under the Warranty. It shows that the product of OP-2 sold by OP-1 has engine defects and the OPs are duty bound to get the same rectified and the vehicle has been jointly illegally retained by the OPs since 05.10.2015 and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to the OPs to remove the defects whatsoever in the said vehicle covering the same under warranty, or to replace the vehicle with new defect free vehicle or to return the purchase price of the vehicle and to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 1 lakh along with interest @ 18% per annum as well as daily damages to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per day for each day of illegally retaining the vehicle and has also prayed for litigation cost.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 31.05.2017, whereby it held as under:

“Referring to the facts of the present case, complainant is the first owner and the job card dated 05.10.2015 issued by OP-1 shows that the vehicle has travelled 11795 KMS and as such the vehicle is covered under the terms of warranty. The OPs are trying to take the defence that the complainant has negligently used the vehicle and has driven the vehicle in water logged area. This condition is not mentioned in the terms & conditions of the warranty policy. It is no where written there in that vehicle not to be driven in water logged area. In case of sudden excessive rain and consequential water logging in the area, the consumer is not expected to leave the vehicle in the middle of the road and to swim in the road. The manufacturer while manufacturing such a product is under a duty safeguard the interest of consumer/purchaser of the vehicle in such conditions and to install/affix safety devices/preventive measures in the vehicle. The manufacturer is also under a duty to provide free of charges repair in such cases. Accordingly, we are of opinion that OPs should have repaired the vehicle of the complainant free of charges. As the OPs have refused the repair, we hold both the OPs guilty of deficiency in service.

Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct both the OPs jointly or severally, as under: to repair the vehicle of the complainant free of charges within 30 days from the date of this order, to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered, to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

The above amount shall be paid by both the OPs jointly or severally to the complainant who is the son of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has erred in establishing that the car has manufactur