Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/547/2017

Dr. Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Em Pee Motors Ltd, Pioneer Toyota - Opp.Party(s)

Jimmy Singla

27 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	547 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	20.07.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	27.03.2018

 

 

 

 

Dr.Ashok Kumar s/o Sh.Jagdish Rai, R/o 2439, Telehos Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh,  now  R/o 2408, Telehos Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.      

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Em Pee Motors Limited, Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177, H Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160017 through its Director.

2]  Em Pee Motors Limited, C-154-156, Industrial Area, Focal Point, Patiala through its Director

3]  Toyota Motors, 4^th Floor, Ambience Corporate Tower, Ambience Island, Near Delhi-Gurgaon Toll Plaza-I, Gurgaon 122001

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Jimmy Singla, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Manager of OPs No.1 & 2.

 Opposite Party No.3 exparte.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased new Toyota Altis Car from Opposite Party No.1 along with company accessories on 18.7.2016 vide bill Ann.C-1.  It is averred that after purchase of car, the complaint found that there was some problem with front head lights, Bluetooth cum music system was not working properly and the rear camera view was not proper. It is averred that due to defective head light focusing, the complainant is at high risk of accident, so he brought this fact to the notice of Opposite Parties, but every time they did nothing effectively and merely mentioned that Headlight Focusing done (Ann.C-2 colly). 

 

         It is submitted that the because of defective design, the voice of the person speaking through Bluetooth device is not audible to the listener and when this matter was brought to the notice of OPs, they made remarks on invoice dated 12.8.2016 “Head light focusing done, Dash Board side NVH kit fix done, rear camera check found ok, Bluetooth check working OK but due to Air flow, MIC side voice cutted, educate to customer…”.  It is also submitted that the OPs have expressly admitted that due to air Flow, voice passing through the Mike was not audible to the listener and as such, the OPs suggested the complainant that he should talk on phone by keeping the air conditioner of the car Off.  It is further submitted that the Opposite Parties have installed an incompatible as well as defective devoice in the car of the complainant and in fact, the design of the device is faulty. 

 

         It is stated that another problem regarding tilted view projected by the rear camera of the car was also brought to the notice of OPs a number of times, but they straightaway over-ruled the request of the complainant and instead mentioned on invoice dated 12.8.2016 that rear view camera checked found OK.  It is pleaded that the complainant brought the said defects to the notice of OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging unfair trade practices resorted to by the OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant has no case because the complainant has not visited in the workshop of OPs NO.1 & 2 for getting the adjustment after purchase of the vehicle which simply require adjustments.  It is stated that the complainant had filed two job cards Ann.C-2 after getting the normal job done on 2.8.2016 while covering 1000 KM and thereafter second service on 10,000 kms which was got done on 6.1.2017 for a payment of Rs.2213.44. It is also stated that the complainant never visited after 6.1.2017 which shows that the complainant has no cause about the alleged defects in the car. It is also stated that the jobs about dashboard noise, Bluetooth were checked and found working OK as per customer approval.  It is submitted that the jobs were carried out to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter, he took the delivery of the car and signed gate pass, satisfaction in token of its correctness. Denying the allegations of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Opposite Party NO.3 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 7.11.2017.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The complainant after purchase of car on 18.7.2016, took the vehicle for service on 2.8.2016, then on 12.8.2016 and later on 6.1.2017.  The minor issues pertaining to Head Light Focusing, Dash Board side NVH Kit fixed, Rear Camera, Bluetooth also checked and found working properly in the service centre by OPs.  During pendency of this complaint, the Opposite Parties offered to attend and provide their services to the complainant to his entire satisfaction.  The complainant took his car to the Service Centre with Opposite Parties on 2.2.2018.  The car was checked thoroughly as per complaint of the complainant and the OPs done the needful to rectify the Head Light Focusing.  The Opposite Parties also checked the stereo system of the car and found it in proper working condition (Ann.A-1 & A-2).  The complainant has failed to substantiate any deficiency on the part of the OPs in attending to the proper servicing of the car from time to time as and when he brought the car for service in the Service Centre.  There is nothing on record to suggest that there is any manufacturing defect in the car or any other defect, which may impede the normal driving of the said car by the complainant.  The comforts in driving the vehicle is always subjective and it varies from person to person. Any grouse without any substantive corroborated evidence cannot be treated to be a manufacturing defect or any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturer of the vehicle or the Service Centre. 

 

7]       In view of the facts, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is found to be without merits and hence dismissed.      No order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27^th March, 2018                                                 

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER