Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/17/2016

Taranvir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANR MOTORS Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Balbinder Kaur

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

                

Consumer Complaint No.      :  17/2016        

Date of decision                     :  19.08.2016

 

Miss.Taranvir Kaur, Addl. District Attorney, D/o Sh.Mehnga Singh Banwait R/o Village Urapar Tehsil Nawanshahr, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.                                                                                                                                                              ….Complainant

    Versus

ANR Motors Private Limited, Village Langroya, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar through its Manager (Sales).

                                                                 ….Opposite Party

                 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         Sh.Manohar Singh, Advocate, proxy counsel.

For OPs                         :         Sh.P.S. Chahal, Advocate

 

QUORUM:

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 ORDER

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.       In brief the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased car bearing Full Model Code NUK10R-AHMNXX, VIN No.MBJK4ZBT000030360, Engine No.IND-1289685 on 17.10.2012 which deals with Toyota Cars with warranty of 36 months or 1,00,000/- KM whichever is earlier.  She was getting service of the said car from OP as per schedule given by Toyota Motor Company, in due time and the car has only run 33784 KM till 24.01.2014.  Details of service are given as under:-

(i)      First Service on 05.04.2013 vide Service/Sales Invoice No.TAX13-01617 (Cash) for Rs.2209/-.

(ii)     Second Service on 14.11.2013 vide Service/Sales Invoice No.TAX13-05052 (Cash) for Rs.1912/-.

(iii)    Third Service on 23.11.2013 vide Service/Sales Invoice No.TAX13-05219 (Credit) for Rs.29,152/-.

(iv)    Fourth Service on 13.09.2014 vide Service/Sales Invoice No.TAX14-01742 (Credit) for Rs.4,003/-.

(v)     Fifth Service on 24.11.2014 vide Service/Sales Invoice No.TAX14-02362 (Credit) for Rs.4,904/-.

          Due to engine problem as the indicator in the motor was showing  red light and same was sent to OP and it was intimated that the car radiator assembly is not properly functioning and same was changed and again it was intimated that gas cut cylinder is leaking and it was to be changed to the utter surprise of the complainant.  The OP dismantled the entire engine in five parts and thereafter OP informed that this engine cannot be repaired.  She has to have a new engine which costs Rs.3,29,000/-.  The complainant asked the Work Manager of OP, as to why the entire engine has been dismantled and requested OP to repair it at their own cost.  It was stated by the Sales Manager that as per company rules, company is neither to replace the same nor to repair it.  Sales Manager further told her that engine assembly can be got repaired by the complainant from the private repairers and she can claim the cost so incurred thereon from OP.  Accordingly, she got repaired the engine assembly from private sources upon which an expenditure of Rs.43,400/- for purchase of engine assembly accessories/parts and Rs.27500/- on account of repair charges have been spent by her.  In this connection, she presented bill dated 14.12.2014 for Rs.43200/- and bill dated 17.12.2014 for Rs.27500/- to OP with request to make payment of the same but OP flatly refused to make the payment despite repeated requests.  OP is deficient in providing satisfactory consumer services.  Earlier, she had moved complaint U/s 22 of the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment Act, 2002), before Permanent Lok Adalat at

.

 

Nawanshahr, but said authority vide its order dated 29.01.2016 ordered that court has not the jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint. Hence this complaint.  It is prayed that OP be directed to make payment of Rs.70,900/- alongwith interest, litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and harassment.

2.       Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written reply stating therein that concerned vehicle was not purchased from answering OP.  Complainant visited OP for the first time after plying the vehicle for 30,000 KM, on 13.09.2014. Some minor parts were changed and regular service after 30000 KM was done. None of the parts which were changed on 13.09.2014 were suffering any defect when the vehicle came again on 24.11.2014. Thereafter, she visited to OP when the meter was showing mileage 33783 KM, the service charges, and replacement of filter and oil amounting to Rs.4003/- only were charged from her.  No other service was provided by answering OP nor any service charges was received from complainant on 24.11.2014, some parts were purchased by her i.e. gasket cylinder for Rs.1306.45, radiator Assy. Rs.3593.59, other engine assembly Rs.3.48 only and in total Rs.4904/- only. As the car indicator of motor was showing the red light, the OP told her that the engine has been over heated due to leakage of the coolant.  It must have been damaged due to some external reason that can be due to some accident, but she told that there was no external accident and told the OP that they will have to replace the gasket cylinder and radiator assembly and directed the OP to replace these parts and thereafter try the vehicle, the said parts were changed on her directions.  But the vehicle suffered some accident and as the vehicle had been plied for long distance without coolant hence the entire engine was damaged due to overheating.  The answering OP told that the engine require over haul or replacement and told her to decide, but she told that she will not replace or over haul the engine and she will try to get the same engine repaired from some private mechanic.  The answering OP did not charge even a single paisa as services charges, as such no short of service can be claimed on the part of OP.  It is also stated that OP is not responsible for any defect which is not concerned with any fault of manufacturing by the company and the company replaces the parts of the vehicle only provided by the company in original.  No official of the OP can advise any customer to get the vehicle repaired from some private mechanic or get the parts of the vehicle to be replaced with the duplicate parts purchased from some third party.  Even during the warranty period if any customer get even a single service from outside the company workshop or get the vehicle fitted with some part, not manufactured by the company then warranty expires immediately and the company is absolved of all the liability towards the consumer.  In this case the only service was provided by the OP to complainant on 13.09.2014.  Even otherwise, if the service was not proper then the vehicle could not have been plied for 3734 KMs after leakage of coolant within 100 KM the engine seizes. No service charges were received by OP from complainant on 24.11.2014 as no service was provided.  OP only advised her regarding condition of the engine and she was fully satisfied and told that it was fault of her driver who went on driving the vehicle after the leakage of coolant.  As such she prefer to get the vehicle repaired from some private mechanic as some private mechanic had already offered her to make the vehicle workable without any replacement of parts, which is called “jugard” in local language of the mechanics.  The OP company cannot offer any “jugard”.  The OPs has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.       In support of complaint, complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

4.       Learned Counsel for OP has also tendered affidavit of Davinder Singh as Ex.OPA alongwith copy of  bill dated 24.11.2014 Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence. 

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of learned counsels for the parties.

6.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Toyota Etios Liva car on 17.10.2012 from Hoshiarpur as stated by counsel for the complainant with warranty of 36 months or 100000 KMs whichever is earlier.  Complainant approached the OP for the first time on 13.09.2014 after plying the vehicle for 30000 KMs for some minor repair.  At that time, some minor parts were changed and regular service after 30000 KMs of the car in question of the complainant was done.  Only small amount of the parts changed were charged from the complainant vide invoice dated 13.09.2014 Ex.C-5.

7.       It may be mentioned here that prior to it, entire free services/repairs were got done by the complainant from Hoshiarpur as is evident from invoice Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4; The vehicle was handed over to complainant by OP after its due repair/service, by making car fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant on 13.09.2014.  Thereafter, complainant approached the OP on 24.11.2014 when meter of the car of the complainant was showing 33783 KMs, the service charges and replacement of filter and oil were charges from the complainant apart from the parts changed i.e. gasket cylinder, radiator Assy., and total amount of Rs.4904/- were charged  by OP from the complainant as per invoice dated 24.11.2014 Ex.C-6.  No other service was provided by OP nor other service charges were received from complainant on 24.11.2014.  The car indicator showing red light so OP told the complainant that engine has been over heated due to leakage of coolant which  has been damaged due to external reason/accident.  The complainant told that there was no external accident. The complainant told to the OP that she will have to replace the assy. and the OP replaced these parts of the vehicle on the directions of the complainant.  Whereas, the vehicle suffered some accident and the vehicle had been plied for long distance without coolant, therefore the engine was damaged due to overheating.  The OP told to the complainant that engine of the car of the complainant requires overhauling or replacement, but the complainant did not agree and she took the car away from service station of the OP.  Thereafter, she got repaired engine from some private mechanic and this fact has been admitted by the complainant.  The complainant purchased engine Assy./parts from SK Auto Spares vide invoice dated 14.12.2014 Ex.C-7 and got the vehicle repaired from Bombay Motor Garage and paid Rs.27500/- vide bill dated 17.12.2014 Ex.C-8.  The complainant got the vehicle repaired from Private Service Center and not from Authorized Service Centre of Toyota Company i.e. OP during warranty period, if the customer gets his vehicle repaired/serviced from outside the Authorized Service Center of the Company i.e. Toyota Car, the manufacturer is not responsible to pay/reimbursement the amount of repair charges or amount of spare parts.  Moreover, the complainant has not made Toyota Car Private Limited – the manufacturer of the vehicle as party to the present complaint.  The OP is only a dealer dealing with Toyota car, manufactured by Toyota Company and Authorized Service Center of Toyota.  The OP is not liable to pay the repair charges of the Toyota Car got done by the customer from private mechanic as was got done by the complainant.  She got her car repaired from Bombay Motor Garage, Nawanshahr as such, the OP was justified in not making/reimbursement of the payment of the amount spent by the complainant on the repair of the vehicle in question from private garage i.e. Bombay Motor Garage, Nawanshahr.  In this case, the complainant could not claim this amount from OP nor the complainant has made Toyota Company i.e. manufacturer of the car as party in the present complaint because warranty is to be provided by manufacturer i.e. Toyota Company. 

8.       Consequently, we hold that there is no deficiency in services on the part of OP qua the complainant.  As such complaint against OP is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 9.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  19.08.2016

                                                          (BHUPINDER SINGH)

                                                          President

         

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member