For the Appellant : In Person
3.08.2012
O R D E R
Complainant/Appellant purchased Toyota Qualis B-3-FS Car bearing registration No.GJ-6-AB-8905 on 16.06.2000 for Rs.5,71,960/- from the Respondent No.1, dealer of the Respondent No.2, Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., manufacturer of Toyota cars. After purchasing the car, on 12.7.2000, in the first rainy season appellant found water leakage in the car and water was found under the front cabin and front seats as a result of which the front cabin got rusted and tapestry, foam padding and windscreen were damaged. Appellant approached Respondent No.1 for removing the defects. Respondent No.1 admitted the leakage problem in the car and mentioned in the service book that “water dripping attended as per the procedure of TKM by 3 M, sealant tested and vehicle found O.K. on 25.10.2000. Again on 12.07.01 when the monsoon began, the water leakage problem reappeared. Appellant sent his car to the workshop of the Respondent No.1 to remove the leakage problem but the same could not be rectified. Since the water leakage problem was not solved, Complainant filed the complaint before the State Commission alleging manufacturing defect in the car and claiming the replacement of the car along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for harassment and loss of business or in the alternative to refund Rs.5,71,960/- being the value of the car along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as aforesaid.
Respondents, on being served, entered appearance and filed their separate written statements. Respondent No.1 denied the allegations made in the complaint. It was pleaded by the Respondent No.2 that the defects pointed out by the Complainant were duly attended to his satisfaction; that there was no manufacturing defect in the car; that the Complainant had suppressed the fact that the vehicle met with an accident and was got repaired on 24/25.04.01; that there was adverse effect on the shape of the body shell of the car due to said accident; that the windscreen of the car was replaced to solve the leakage problem permanently; that they offered to replace the complete body shell of the car as a gesture but the Complainant did not co-operate, that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint was likely to be dismissed.
State Commission, after considering the facts, material and evidence led by the parties, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Respondents to replace the entire body shell of the car with attendant parts without any charge. Rs.10,000/- were awarded towards inconvenience and harassment.
Respondents did not file any appeal against the order of the State Commission. Complainant filed the First Appeal No. 296 of 2006 before this Commission challenging the order of the State Commission.
This Commission, after considering the nature and extent of defect in the car and that the Complainant had used the car for 8 years and was not willing to get the body shell of the car replaced, partly allowed the appeal and modified the relief part of the order of the State Commission to the extent that the Respondents would be liable jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Appellant within a period of four weeks failing which the amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a.
Appellant, being aggrieved, preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court being CC No. 9915/2009 which was dismissed by order dated 8.10.09.
Appellant filed Execution Application No. 9 of 2010 before the State Commission for compliance of its original order dated 28.04.06.
State Commission dismissed the Execution Application as not maintainable. State Commission came to the conclusion that as the relief part was modified by the National Commission, the Appellant was entitled for consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only which had already been paid to him by the Respondents.
We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The order passed by the State Commission was modified by this Commission considering the nature and extent of the defect in the car and that the car was used for 8 years and the complainant was not willing to get the body shell of the car replaced. Under these circumstances, this Commission directed the Respondents to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Appellant jointly and severally towards the loss, inconvenience and harassment which he may have suffered on account of the defect in the vehicle. Appellant filed an SLP against the said order which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The order passed by the State Commission as modified by this Commission attained finality. The Respondents have already paid the decreed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Appellant and decree stands satisfied. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. |
