M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellant, in F.A.No.36/2007 and F.A.No.539/2006.
(2.) The complainant, who is arrayed as respondent in both the appeals, had purchased a Ford Ikon, vehicle, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, from the 1st opposite party who is the dealer, on 18.10.2002, and the Registration No. is TN-10-E 5922. While the car was under the warranty, the complainant handed over the vehicle for last free service at Chennai Ford Service Station (1st Opposite party). The vehicle met with an accident, while it was in their hands, on 13.10.2003, causing extensive damages. The accident took place, when the vehicle was entrusted, for final free service, and therefore the complainant is entitled for a replacement of a new vehicle, which was refused, inspite of repeated demands, and notice. Therefore, the complainant is constrained to file a case against the opposite parties, for unfair trade practice, as well under the heading deficiency in service, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Because of the refusal to replace the vehicle, the complainant was put to mental agony, and other sufferings, for which also he is entitled to a sum of Rs.50000/-, as compensation. Hence the complaint is filed seeking directions against the opposite parties, to replace by a new Ford Ikon car, as well for a recovery of a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony, and physical strain, alongwith cost.
(3.) The 1st opposite partys case, briefly as follows: The complainant is not a consumer, and therefore the case filed is not maintainable. The vehicle sustained damage, in the accident, for which if at all the complainant ought to have filed a case under the Motor Vehicle Act, for compensation, and in this view this forum has no jurisdiction.;