DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 15^th  day of September 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                Date of filing:  23/10/2017

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member  

CC/150/2017

Paulson Varghese,

S/o Varghese.C.I,

Cheruvathur House,

Chalisseri (PO),

Palakkad District.                                                                -  Complainant

(Advs.A.K.Philip & Reetha.V)         

                                                                                 Vs

Amana Toyota,

VPK Motors, 7/749, 751, NH 213, Mundur (PO),

Poriyani, Palakkad.

(Adv. E.Ramachandran)

Toyota Kirlosker Motors Pvt. Ltd, - Opposite parties

Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area,

562109, Bangalore Rurler, Karnataka State.

(Advs.Sudeep.V.C, Frijo K Sundaram, Jisha.O & Mini Skaria)

                                                  O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

          The case of the complainant is briefly discussed as follows.  Complainant purchased the vehicle – TOYOTA INNOVA CRYSTA 2.4 GX MODEL CAR with Registration Number : KL 52L 3999 – from the 1^st opposite party on the 12^th of April 2017.  According to the complainant, the 1^st opposite party has displayed him the car with engine cover in the showroom and convinced him that the price quoted in the invoice was Rs.15,36,000/- including the price of the engine cover.  But immediately after its delivery complainant has realised that the engine cover is not provided by the 1^st opposite party which was informed to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant with unsatisfactory response and misleading explanation from the 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party replied that “CRYSTA GX MODEL” does not come with an in-built engine cover and it is an additional accessory.  Although complainant approached the 1^st opposite party several times to provide engine cover, the opposite parties did not provide him the same which caused to the complainant financial loss and mental agony which opposite parties are bound to compensate, as pleaded by the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed before this Forum  to redress his grievance, praying to this Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite parties to provide the engine cover for the vehicle, to pay Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation for the mental agony suffered by him with 12% interest and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties to enter appearance and file their versions.

In the version filed by the 1^st opposite party, he admits that complainant has purchased from the 1^st opposite party “TOYOTA INNOVA CRYSTA 2.4 GX MODEL CAR on 12.04.2017, but denies complainant’s averments in his complaint before the purchase of the car this opposite party has displayed the car in the showroom and convinced the complainant that the price quoted in the invoice is Rs.15,36,000/- which includes the price of the engine cover is incorrect.  According to this opposite party, the model complainant has purchased is 2.4 GX and for this model, it has no in-built engine cover and it is an additional accessory for which the buyers have to pay the price of the cover, whereas the engine cover comes with the higher variant models only and this opposite party has no liability to compensate the complainant as there is no deficiency of service on the side of this  opposite party.  Hence this opposite party prays to this Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost. 

In the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, he contends that 2^nd opposite party is not responsible for the acts and omission of the 1^st opposite party.  This opposite party also contends that the Innova Crysta GX Model car purchased by the complainant does not come with engine cover and that the 1^st opposite party has mislead the complainant into believing that this model comes with engine cover are false and baseless; GX Model of Innova Crysta does not come with in-built engine cover which is clearly stated in the specification and features of the said model and this was clearly explained to the complainant by the 2^nd and 1^st opposite parties.  As a goodwill measure both opposite parties have offered to provide the complainant with engine cover at a discounted price which was refused by the complainant.  Hence this opposite party contends that there is no deficiency in service on their part and pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 

Complainant and opposite parties filed their affidavits.  Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked from the side of the complainant.  Complainant was also heard.   

The following issues are considered in this case.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, the relief and remedy available to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

          Complainant purchased for Rs.15,36,000/- a Toyota Innova Crysta 2.4 G model car bearing Registration Number – KL- 52L3999 from the 1^st opposite party which is evident from Tax Invoice Number – INE 1700000134 dated.28.03.2017 marked as Ext.A1 which also shows engine number of the vehicle purchased.  The complainant has also filed a copy of the Brochure relating to the vehicle purchased by him which is marked as Ext.A2 showing specifications of the said vehicle.  The argument of the complainant is that in the catalogue (Brochure) issued by the 1^st opposite party engine cover is displayed and nowhere it is stated that the model of the car purchased by the complainant is not provided with free engine cover and which models are provided/not provided with engine cover free of cost.  Hence according to the complainant there is a clear deficiency of service and breach of trust on the part of the opposite parties.  As per the version filed by the 1^st opposite party the vehicle model complainant has purchased from the 1^st opposite party was “Toyota Innova Crysta 2.4 G model car” on 12.04.2017 which has no in-built engine cover and it is an additional accessory for which the buyers have to pay the price of the engine cover.  This contention of the 1^st opposite party is also supported by the 2^nd opposite party in their version that GX model of Innova Crysta purchased by the complainant does not come with an in-built engine cover and the same is provided only for the higher models of the Innova Crysta.  Hence both opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint.

          From the affidavits and other documentary evidences filed by both parties before this Forum, we understand that the main issue of this case is whether the engine cover is a part of the         variant of the vehicle purchased by the complainant or not.  Complainant pleads that in the model of the car purchased by him the engine cover is a part of the variant of the purchased car, whereas both opposite parties contend that the engine cover is not part of the variant of the purchased car model.  We also observe that the model of the car purchased by the complainant is 2.4 GX which does not come with the in-built engine cover but inbuilt engine cover comes with higher variant models only.  We also view that complainant has not been able to prove with documentary evidence that the model of the car he has purchased from the 1^st opposite party has in-built engine cover and therefore he is not able to prove that opposite parties are liable to provide him the engine cover free of cost.  We also observe that the complainant has not produced any estimate or quotation and also any documentary evidence to prove that engine guard (engine cover) inclusive price has been recovered from him by the 1^st opposite party and also complainant has not been able to prove with photo that in his house vehicle shown to him had in-built engine over. 

          Under the above circumstances we decide to dismiss the complaint.

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th day of September 2018.

                                                                                                     Sd/-

 Shiny.P.R

                      President 

                        Sd/-        

                      Suma.K.P

                       Member

         Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

            Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 -  Photocopy of Tax Invoice Number – INV 1700000134 dated.28.03.2017 issued by

              Opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A2 -  Original Brochure of the vehicle purchased by the complainant

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1    -  Paulson Varghese

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost  

          Nil