Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/627/2016

Ranjodh Singh Dhillon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Em Pee Motors Ltd, PIONEER TOYOTA - Opp.Party(s)

Shiti Jain

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/627/2016
Date of Institution	:	09/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	21/11/2017

 

Ranjodh Singh Dhillon s/o Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of Village Mahuana Bodla, District Fazilka. Presently residing at H.No.2770, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Em Pee Motors Limited, Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177B, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorised Signatory.

2.     Toyota Kirloskar Motors Limited, Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bidadi, Ramnagara District, Bengaluru, Karnataka, through its Proprietor/ Manager/Authorised Signatory.

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

 

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Shiti Jain, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. S.R. Bansal, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Ms. Dhriti J. Sharma, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 18.11.2014, the complainant purchased a Toyota Etios car from OP-1 and got the same insured. In September, 2015, some foul smell started coming from the Air Conditioning (AC) blower of the car and the AC stopped working properly. When the complainant took the car to OP-1 for getting the same checked, he was shocked to know that the fresh mode pipe of the blower of the AC in the engine of the car had been cut by a rat. However, OP-1 neither had any answer to the same nor it agreed to repair the same free of cost. Left with no option, the complainant got it replaced at his own by paying Rs.37,119/- vide invoice dated 30.9.2015.  However, the same problem arose again in the month of July, 2016.  The complainant reasoned with OP-1 that rat entering the engine (bonnet) again and again is a manufacturing and technical defect and asked it to repair the damage free of cost. OP-1 did the due service, but, refused to replace the AC blower assy and fresh mode switch wire free of cost and told that all expenses were to be borne by the complainant as the same was not covered under the warranty. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 in its written reply has not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that there is no control about the entering of rat in the air conditioner of the car in question, rather it was the duty of the complainant to get the arrangement of rat proof house.  It has been denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2 in its written reply has also not disputed the factual matrix.  It has been averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The model and design of the vehicle is duly approved by the ARAI. The design, specifications and the requirements are laid by the relevant laws and authorities and automobile industry has to comply the said rules and regulations. It has been stated that the complainant has raised false allegations regarding manufacturing defect without any report of an expert of automobile industry.  It has been contended that the entry of rat was not due to any manufacturing defect, rather it was due to negligence of complainant in taking proper care of his car.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Separate Rejoinders were filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of OPs 1 & 2.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
7.         The sole grouse of the complainant is that the fresh mode pipe of the blower of the AC in the engine of the car in question was cut by a rat and the AC unit was replaced by the OPs only after taking an amount of Rs.37,119/- vide Annexure C-2 on 30.9.2015, despite the AC being within the warranty period. But again the complainant had to face the same situation in the month of July 2016 and vide Annexure C-3 dated 23.7.2016, OP-1 declared the damage of the AC due to the same reason that the wires were eaten by rat and so the AC blower Assy and fresh mode switch wire needed replacement. Even though the vehicle was under warranty, OP-1 refused the replacement of the defective part of the vehicle in question, free of cost, saying that the same is not covered under the warranty.  Hence, as per the complainant, the OPs are liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
8.         The stand taken by OP-1 is that it does not have any control about the entry of rats in the AC of the car in question.  Rather it was the duty of the complainant to get arrangement of rat proof house. Hence OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint stating that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 
9.         OP-2/manufacturer has submitted that it is one of the leading and prominent manufacturers of the cars in the automobile industry which is known for its quality and reliability. It has also been contended that it (OP-2) firmly believes in the philosophy of ‘customer first’ and also strives to deliver the best to its customers by manufacturing cars which are tested for quality and time before delivering the same to its customers through its authorised dealer i.e. OP-1.  It has further been contended that the model and design of the vehicle is duly approved by the ARAI. The design, specifications and requirements are as per the laws, authorities and rules and regulations.  Hence OP-2 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 
10.         A perusal of the job sheet dated 30.9.2015 (Annexure C-2), issued by OP-1 only reveals that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.37,119/- for the repair of the AC blower.  Admittedly, vide Annexure C-3 again the same problem appeared in the AC blower.  Over Annexure C-3 it has been mentioned by OP-1 itself that the AC blower Assy and fresh mode switch wire needed replacement as they are eaten by the rat.  As per the case of the complainant, again a hefty amount was demanded by OP-1 for the required repairs.  We are of the opinion that again the demand of repair charges by OP-1 after ensuring appropriate repairs by charging an amount of Rs.37,119/- vide Annexure C-2 proves that it was negligent in providing service to the AC of the vehicle in question because after such repair, there must not have been any occasion for the same kind of fault/defect as reported by it over Annexure C-3.  The defence taken by OP-1 that it does not have any manufacturing defect is not corroborated by any authentic evidence.  As OP-1 charged hefty amount of Rs.37,119/- for the repairs, it was its duty to ensure that again the complainant/consumer will not face the same kind of situation by providing wire mesh over the air ducts of the vehicle to stop the entry of rodents/rats or making any other necessary arrangements so that the same fault does not re-occur, but, it miserably failed to do so.
11.         Pertinently, the literature provided by OP-2 regarding the specification of the vehicle in question does not show that the AC blower is not covered under warranty.  Also it has not been provided that which kind of measures have been taken by the manufacturing company to stop the entry of foreign elements/rodents/rats in the vehicle.  The complainant trusting the brand only spent his hard earned money to make himself and his family comfortable, but, in the present case, he had to time and again face a lot of harassment and mental tension and suffer monetary loss.  Hence the act of OPs in non-repairing the AC deliberately and intentionally vide Annexure C-3, under warranty, despite charging money for repair of the AC of the vehicle in question vide Annexure C-2, proves deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice on their part which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. To repair the vehicle in question of the complainant, free of cost, by repairing/ replacing the necessary parts eaten by rats/rodents as per Annexure C-3.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

13.         This order be complied with by OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/11/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member