MARIKKAR MOTORS BRANCH MANAGER Vs. BABURAJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first opposite party in CC.292/08 before the CDRF, Thrissur is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.10. As per the impugned order, the opposite parties are under directions to return Rs.4,14,440/ - to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization with cost of Rs.2500/ -.

(2.) THE complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has purchased an Ambassadar Car through the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,14,000/ - by availing a loan and that after the purchase of the car, the engine of the car started heating up excessively and the oil consumption also became high. When the defects were reported to the 1st opposite party the vehicle was directed to be brought to the first opposite party s workshop and the vehicle was kept in the work shop from 10/1/08 to 8. 2.08 and the vehicle was returned on 8.2.08 after replacement of the half engine of the vehicle. The complainant s case is that even after replacement of the half engine, the defects continued and the vehicle was again taken to the first opposite party. It is also submitted that though the opposite parties were requested to change the engine, it was not done and hence the complainant was not ready to take back the vehicle. The complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay the value of the vehicle amounting to Rs.4,14,440/ - along with Rs.78,500/ - for the loss sustained by him and another sum of Rs.38,775/ - for the amount to be remitted to the bank along with compensation and costs.

(3.) THE first opposite party filed version wherein it was contended that the half engine was replaced as a mark of goodwill and after effecting necessary repairs, the vehicle was returned to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. However, the first opposite party admitted that the complainant reported the same complaint even after replacement of the half engine and a new one was installed and the vehicle was ready for delivery and it was the complainant who had not taken delivery of the vehicle. Contending that there was no deficiency in service, the first opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.