By: Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1) The complainant is the owner of the car Etios Liva VD limited, manufactured
by the second opposite party . The first opposite party is the dealer of the second opposite party. According to the complainant, he purchased the above said vehicle from one Sareefa, who bought the same from the first opposite party on 13/04/2016. It is stated in the complaint that after driving around 20000 KM, the vehicle suffered excess oil shortage. On 14/06/2018 the complainant contacted the first opposite party and top up was done as per direction and also replaced vacuum pressure pump. The complaint of the excess oil shortage repeatedly occurred, but the opposite party did not rectified the defect ever and even incurred the expenses for top up of the engine oil. The complainant is using the vehicle since 10/01/2019. When the complaint of the shortage of engine was noticed within the first 5000 km of his use, he reported the same before the dealer of the vehicle situated near to his residence. According to the complainant the first opposite party informed him that the alleged complaint of the vehicle is usual as it is found in almost all vehicles manufactured in the same series of diesel vehicle and advised to verify the status of engine oil in every 5000 KMS. It is further stated that the first opposite party cheated the complainant by assuring rectification of the defect, if any solution is found by R D department of the manufacturing company. The excess engine oil consumption was abnormally increased even after undergoing repeated services of the vehicle. According to the complainant, for covering every 1000 KMS distance the consumption engine oil come to the tune of 1 litter. The maximum quantity of engine oil that can be used in the vehicle is 3.9 litters. So it is impossible to top up the engine oil in every 5000 KMS. If the top up is not done within 5000 KMS, the function of the engine will be seized. The complainant alleged manufacturing defect to the vehicle and many complaints are rised against the vehicles manufactured in the same series. The opposite parties neglected the defects pointed out by the complainant and kept a lukewarm response under the pretext of expired warranty period. According to the complainant, the defects were found during the warranty period and same is reported before the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties caused mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the complainant. The opposite parties committed deficiency in services. The complainant prayed for an order directing the opposite parties to pay the price of engine of the vehicle to the complainant and also prayed for the suitable relief as deemed it.
2) The complaint is admitted and issued notices to the opposite parties. Both opposite parties appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
3) The version of the first opposite party vehemently opposed the contentions of the complainant. The opposite party admitted the purchase of the vehicle by one Shareefa but denied acquaintance with the complainant. According to the opposite party, there is knowledge about the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. The alleged reporting of complaint made on 14/06/2018 by the complainant regarding excess shortage of engine oil is false and hence denied by the opposite party. The opposite party also denied the incident of replacement of vacuum pressure pump and non finding of solution for excess engine oil consumption of the vehicle. The opposite party contended that the complainant did not approach him on 14/06/2018 as alleged in the complaint and he was not a registered owner of the vehicle on that particular day. According to the opposite party, the shortage of engine oil seen in the vehicle is quiet natural to a vehicle which covered such distance and no other defects were found on the vehicle. The opposite party also stated that the revealed facts are known to the customer who brought the vehicle for service and convinced him about the facts revealed during service of the vehicle. The opposite party admitted the replacement of vacuum pressure pump without any cost. The statements of the complainant that he is using the vehicle since 10/01/2019 and when he noticed shortage of engine oil within the first 5000 KMS of his use, same was reported before the dealer of the vehicle is denied by the opposite party. According to the opposite party the vehicle was reported before the service centre on 12/01/2019 in order to repair the body of the vehicle in connection with an accident and the complaint was repaired by the opposite party. According the opposite party , he never told the complainant that the alleged complaint of shortage engine oil is usual to diesel variant vehicles manufactured by the second opposite party and did not advice the complainant to verify the status of engine oil in every 5000KMS . The opposite party did not undertake that the vehicle was under the coverage of warranty period and did not cheat the complainant. The opposite party also denied the allegation of consumption of 1 litter engine oil per every 1000 KMS of driving and vehicle is facing an endangered situation. It is contended by the opposite party that the complainant raised the complaint of excess shortage of engine oil only on 16/06/2019 when he approached for service of vehicle after covering a distance of 40000 KMS. In examination, it is found that the shortage of oil is quite usual and the opposite party added only 100 ML engine oil to the vehicle. According to the opposite party, the complaint of excess shortage of engine oil raised only after the expiry of warranty period by the complainant. The opposite party also averred that he provided services properly to the complainant. According to the opposite party every customer need to be checked the engine oil in every 1000 KMS driving and same is also mentioned in owners’ Manual. So the statement of the complainant that he cannot make top up of engine oil for every 5000 KMS and if not done top up accordingly there will be seizure of engine of the vehicle is incorrect and falsehood. The opposite parties did not cheated any of its customers and there is no manufacturing defect to the Etios Liva diesel variant vehicles of the opposite parties. The opposite party denied all allegations raised in the complaint. According to the opposite party the complaint is filed to make unlawful gain from the opposite parties. The complainant purchased the vehicle after the expiry period of warranty. So the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost. The opposite party did not advice the complainant to approach the Consumer Disputes Redresaal Commission for getting relief and on the contrary, the opposite party behaved decently towards the complainant. The allegation of manufacturing defect is not correct. The complaint raised by the complainant was properly attended by the employees of the opposite parties regularly. The vehicle manufactured by the second opposite party secured high reputation among its customers and the opposite party never advised the complainant to purchase the subject vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of t opposite party and so the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
4. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle. In the version, it is contended that the second opposite party is one of the leading car manufacturers in India and in known for its quality reliable products. The relationship between the first opposite party and second opposite party is a principal to principal basis. The opposite party denied all the allegations and averments in the complaint and same is filed with malafide intention and hence liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought in the complaint. It is contended by the opposite party that the complainant is not the original owner of the subject vehicle and he purchased the same from another person after it covered more than 20000 KMS. The complainant made the purchase knowing well that the subject vehicle had certain issues at the time of purchase by the complainant, due to rash and negligent manner in which the vehicle was used after the purchase. There is no excess engine oil shortage as alleged in the complaint. It manufactures the vehicles that go through all the necessary procedures as approved by the Government and there is no manufacturing defect at all to the vehicle. It is contended that the alleged engine oil shortage is due to rash and negligent driving of the complainant himself and it used against the condition mentioned in Owners’ Manual . According to the opposite party, the engine oil consumption varies depending on the following parameters such as driving at high engine R P M (Revolutions Per Minute ) driving with heavy load, accelerating and de accelerating frequently while driving , leaving the engine idle for a long time and frequently driving through heavy traffic etc. The opposite party submitted that the complainant’s driving pattern clubbed with other contributing factors like traffic condition , driving location , etc is the cause for the alleged excessive engine oil shortage , if any , in the subject vehicle and the same cannot be attributed to the opposite party as a manufacturing defect. So according the opposite party , the complainant alleged excess engine oil consumption after the use of vehicle for 20000 KMS is itself shows that the subject vehicle had no manufacturing defect and it is the manner in which the complainant used the vehicle that resulted in engine oil shortage , if any , for the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. The allegation of the complainant that the complaint of excess oil shortage is common for Etios Liva models and that the complainant is facing continuous problem of oil shortage is false and made with malafide intention. All client related issues and concerns are directly involving the first opposite party. The previous owner of the vehicle or the complainant never brought up any concern of engine oil shortage during the 20000 KMS service. The complainant did not carry out the service of the vehicle during regular intervals as prescribed in the Owner’s Manual. The complainant never carried out the regular 5000 KMS maintenance service and has used the vehicle in the most rash and negligent manner. It is added by the opposite party that there were many repair works carried out on the vehicle wherein the spare parts were changed in many occasions which itself shows the rash and negligent in which the vehicle was being used by the complainant and its previous owner. The vehicle had met with an accident and the repair works for the same was also carried out at 46,198 KMS and the complainant had replaced the front bumper along with other parts of the vehicle. The complaint is filed only after the occurrence of the accident. The allegations that the opposite parties serviced the vehicle and answered that the mistake was rectified and the vehicle again shown issues are false and made with malafide intention. When the complainant raised the issue of engine oil shortage then the first opposite party immediately attended the issue and carried out all the essential tests on the vehicle to identify that the vehicle had absolutely no issues. The complainant knows that the vehicle has lost its quality and condition due the negligent act of the complainant and hence approached the Commission with a prayer to get replacement of the engine by stating frivolous and erroneous allegation. The complainant has not serviced the vehicle at regular periods as prescribed in the owners’ manual and defects mentioned in the complaint are not manufacturing defects. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought in the complaint and no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed towards the complainant.
5) The complainant and the opposite parties filed affidavits and documents. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 document is the copy of service history of the vehicle. Ext. A2 document is the copy of Owner’s Manual issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext. A3 document is the copy of bill dated 21/01/2020 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A4 document is the copy of inspection report made in C.C.No.128/2019 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode. The first opposite party produced documents and marked as Ext. B1 to B2 documents. Ext. B1 document is the copy of page No.162 of User’s Manual of the vehicle.. Ext. B2 document is the copy of page No.175 of User’s Manual of the vehicle. The second opposite party did not produce any documents.
6. Heard both sides in detail. Perused documents and affidavits. The points arisen for the consideration of the commission are:-
1) Whether the opposite parties committed any kind of deficiency in service towards the complainant.
2) Relief and cost.
7. Point No.1 and 2
The case of the complainant is that due to excessive consumption of engine oil of his vehicle he sustained financial loss and mental agony. The complainant stated that he purchased the vehicle from one Sareefa on 10/01/2019. The complainant contended that he noticed excess shortage of engine oil by the first use of 5000kms. According to the complainant, he immediately reported the complaint before the nearest showroom of his residence but they advised to check the engine oil in every 5000 KMS of driving. According to the complainant the first opposite party informed him that the complaint of excess shortage of engine oil is found in all most all the vehicles manufactured in the same series of vehicles including the subject vehicle of this proceeding. It is also submitted by the complainant that consumption of engine oil is abnormally increased even after undergoing repeated services to the vehicle. The complainant produced service history of the vehicle to support his case contended in the complaint as well as the affidavit. The service history of the vehicle is marked as Ext. A1 document by the Commission . So the complainant alleged manufacturing defect to the vehicle and prayed for replacement of engine of the vehicle. But both the opposite parties denied allegation raised by the complainant and contended that there was no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. According to the opposite parties the alleged engine oil shortage was due to rash and negligent driving of the complainant and he used the vehicle against the conditions stated in the owner’s Manual . When going through the evidences adduced in both forms of affidavits and documents, it can be find that the complainant did not take any step to prove that the engine of the vehicle suffers manufacturing defect. In the version as well as in the affidavit filed by the opposite parties, it is categorically stated that the alleged engine oil shortage in due to rash and negligent driving of the complainant. It is further contended by the opposite parties that consumption of engine oil is depending upon driving of high engine Revolutions Permit , driving with heavy load, accelerating and de accelerating frequently while driving leaving the engine for long time and frequently driving through heavy traffic. This contention of the opposite parties is more acceptable when the complainant failed to adduce expert evidence especially in the case of allegation of manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The complainant contended that he reported the complaint of excess shortage of engine oil on 12/01/2019. In the affidavit, the complainant stated that the opposite parties wilfully omitted to record the complaint in order to cheat him. But this contention of the complainant cannot take in to account while evaluating the evidences as the allegation has no backing of evidence. According to the complainant, he purchased the vehicle on 10/01/2019 and noticed the complaint of excess engine oil shortage within first 5000 kms of his use. The complainant immediately reported the issue before the dealer. It is further stated in both the complaint and affidavit that he was advised to verify the status of engine oil in every 5000 KMS and he alleged the consumption of engine oil increased even after repeated services. According to the complainant the top up of the engine oil should be done in every year or covering every 10000 kms of driving. The complainant produced copy of a page of Owner’s Manual before the Commission and same is marked as Ext. B2 document. It is averred by the complainant that he acted in accordance with the condition of Ext. A2 documents. But, on the contrary the opposite parties contended that the complainant did not carry out the service of the vehicle during regular intervals as prescribed in the Owner’s Manual. The first opposite party produced copies of page No.162 and 175 of User’s Manual and those documents marked are as Ext. B1 and B2 documents. As per the evidence adduced before the Commission there should be check of oil level on regular basis to prevent serious engine damage and replacement oil is stipulated in every 5000 kms. So in this juncture, it find that the alleged defect of the shortage of engine oil can be ascertained only with the help of an expert opinion. In the version, the opposite party alleged that the vehicle was met with an accident and the repair works for the same was carried out at 46198 KMS and the complainant had replaced the front bumper along with other parts of the vehicle. According to the opposite party the complainant approached the Commission only after the occurrence of the accident. Moreover it is further stated by the opposite parties that there were many repair works carried out on the vehicle and spare parts were changed on many occasions which itself shows the rash and negligent driving of the complainant. But, opposing the above argument of the opposite party, the complainant stated that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the complainant. The complainant admitted the occurrence of accident but only minor in nature and not genuine as alleged by the opposite parties. The complainant produced Ext. A3 document to show the nature of accident faced by the vehicle. Even though Ext. A3 document shows as top up was done by the complainant , Commission cannot take it as considerable piece of evidence to conclude that the engine suffers defect. The complainant also produced the copy of an inspection report filed in C.C.No.128/2019 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode and same is marked as Ext. A4 document. This Commission cannot act upon the copy of inspection report produced in connection with a case on the file of another Commission. So evaluating the available evidences produced by both sides, this Commission finds that the complainant failed to establish his contention made in the complaint with sufficient proof. Hence complaint is dismissed..
Dated this 31st day of January , 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1: Copy of service history of the subject vehicle in these proceedings.
Ext.A2: Copy of owner’s manual issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ext A3: Copy of bill dated 21/01/2020 issued by the opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext A4: Copy of inspection report made in C.C.No.128/2019 on the file of District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kozhikode.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 and B2
Ext.B1: Copy of page No.162 of User’s Manual of the subject vehicle in these
proceedings.
Ext.B2: copy of page No.175 of User’s Manual of the subject vehicle in these
proceedings.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
