Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The opposite party no.2 filed written version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction. The complaint is barred by limitation.

The opposite party no.2 has no knowledge about the vehicle stalled in the rain water on 20.8.2011. As per the procedure the opposite party no.2 informed the opposite party n.4 to inspect the car and to do the survey of the damage.

Accordingly the opposite party no.4 has deputed their surveyor to inspect the damage after assessing the damage the surveyor had taken photographs of the damaged cylinder block and accordingly estimation was given to the opposite party no.4. The damage caused to the vehicle is outside the purview of the warranty. The damage occurs only due to the driver not taking precautionary measures while driving the car in flood waters which includes stalling of the car in rain water resulting in the locking of the engine hydro statically resulting in the breakage of 7 cylinder block. The complainant did not follow instructions stipulated in the manual. The job cards dated 22.8.2011 indicates the vehicle covered 5656 kms from the date of its purchase and at no point of time the complainant complained of any defect in the engine. The opposite party submitted that engine cylinder of the vehicle are crucial parts of the engine without which the engine cannot run for a kilometer.