PJES INDUSTRIES S/O LATE MATHIAS RODRIGUES Vs. VIJAYA MOTOR SALES & SERVICES & 5 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In brief the case of the complainant was that the complainant purchased the subject vehicle for Rs. 8, 23, 581/- on 24.02008 from the respondent no.1 - the authorized dealer of the respondent no.2 - the manufacturer of the vehicle. Despite periodical services from the authorized dealer, the vehicle started giving trouble and stopped on 15.08.2008. It was ascertained that there was a problem in the FIE (Fuel Injection Equipment) and as per directions of the authorized dealer the vehicle was brought to the respondent no. 4 - authorized workshop of respondent no. 6 - the manufacturer of FIE, from where, after receiving the report, he again contacted the authorized dealer, who did not replace the said defective FIE and also did not replace all the "hardened tyres" inspite of promise, and declined to supply the PDI (Pre Delivery Inspection) report. A complaint was filed before the District Forum on 05.02009 for deficiency in service, inter alia seeking relief to replace the FIE of the vehicle with a new one; compensation of Rs. 1, 00,000/-; "along with court costs interest at 12% per annum"; and other expenses / reliefs deemed fit.

(2.) The District Forum vide its Order dated 21.03.2009 dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant was not a 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act).

(3.) In appeal the State Commission vide its Order dated 19.02010 held that the complainant was a 'consumer' under the Act and remanded the matter back to the District Forum.